[Babbabud]

Federal authorities have ruled that the federal government can prosecute ppl who smoke mj under doctors orders... This doesnt look good for states that dont have mj laws.....and not so great for the larger scale grower for sure

[Babbabud]

This is the Raich decision apparently

[Niemand]

Supreme Court: Federal government can prosecute over medical marijuana use
BREAKING NEWS
U.S. Supreme Court rules federal authorities may prosecute sick people who smoke marijuana on doctors’ orders. Details soon.

Apparently......

Waiting for details but once again.......


BUMMER

[Niemand]

Justices deal blow to medical marijuana
U.S. government may prosecute users, top court rules
BREAKING NEWS
The Associated Press
Updated: 10:26 a.m. ET June 6, 2005
WASHINGTON - Federal authorities may prosecute sick people who smoke pot on doctors’ orders, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state medical marijuana laws don’t protect users from a federal ban on the drug.

advertisement

The decision is a stinging defeat for marijuana advocates who had successfully pushed 10 states to allow the drug’s use to treat various illnesses.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.

The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case that it lost in late 2003. At issue was whether the prosecution of medical marijuana users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional.

Under the Constitution, Congress may pass laws regulating a state’s economic activity so long as it involves “interstate commerce” that crosses state borders. The California marijuana in question was homegrown, distributed to patients without charge and without crossing state lines.

Stevens said there are other legal options for patients, “but perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress.”

California’s medical marijuana law, passed by voters in 1996, allows people to grow, smoke or obtain marijuana for medical needs with a doctor’s recommendation. Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state have laws similar to California.

In those states, doctors generally can give written or oral recommendations on marijuana to patients with cancer, HIV and other serious illnesses.

© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[Niemand]

Supreme Court outlaws use of marijuana for medical reasons
Monday, June 6, 2005 Posted: 10:20 AM EDT (1420 GMT)


YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
Supreme Court

Regulatory Policy and Organizations

California

or Create your own

Manage alerts | What is this?
Federal authorities may prosecute sick people who smoke pot on doctors' orders, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state medical marijuana laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug.

The decision is a stinging defeat for marijuana advocates who had successfully pushed 10 states to allow the drug's use to treat various illnesses.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.

The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case that it lost in late 2003. At issue was whether the prosecution of medical marijuana users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional.

Under the Constitution, Congress may pass laws regulating a state's economic activity so long as it involves "interstate commerce" that crosses state borders. The California marijuana in question was homegrown, distributed to patients without charge and without crossing state lines.

This really sux. Watch there be alot of raids now as a show of force. Man I just can't believe that this didn't make it through. I guess there was to much to be lost by our goverment. To much money involved.

Do you have to be in FED numbers territory, for example 50+ plants, or can they just come and prosecute anyone now, prescription or not??

I am going to be doing a lot of reading today about this... sad day indeed.

[pistillwhipped]

Anyone in the know, explain what it means for us med growers. I'm scared and confused as to what this means. Do I have to go underground? One thing certain: No more internet pics for me.

MPP's release/

On June 6, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 that the federal government can continue arresting patients who use medical marijuana legally under their state laws. However, the court did not overturn state medical marijuana laws or in any way interfere with their continued operation.

At issue in Ashcroft v. Raich was whether the federal government has the constitutional authority to arrest and prosecute patients who are using medical marijuana in compliance with state laws.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court indicated that Congress—not the Court—must be the institution to change federal law to protect medical marijuana patients from arrest.

What the court has done is continue the status quo: Patients in the 10 states with medical marijuana laws are protected under state law but will continue to risk prosecution under federal law. In other words, the court's decision means that nothing has changed.

But it also means that—since it's now clear that patients cannot count on the federal courts for protection—the ball is now firmly in Congress' court, which means that we must push harder than ever for Congress to change federal law.

Ashcroft v. Raich Does Not Affect States' Ability to Pass Medical Marijuana Laws
Ashcroft v. Raich does not affect states' ability to pass medical marijuana law—and it does not overturn the laws now protecting the right of 57 million Americans living in Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington to use medical marijuana legally under state laws.

The issue in the Raich case was whether the federal government has the power, under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, to arrest, make seizures, and prosecute individuals for purely intrastate activities related to the use of marijuana in accordance with state law. The question of whether a state may make the possession of marijuana legal for medical purposes was not at issue. Under fundamental doctrines of federalism, it is and will continue to be completely within the power of a state to enact laws immunizing medical marijuana patients and their providers from arrest, seizure, and prosecution by state and local officials.

The decision simply confirms what has always been true about state medical marijuana provisions: that the federal government has the authority—but not the obligation—under federal law to arrest, prosecute, and seize marijuana from medical marijuana patients and providers even when they are acting in compliance with state law. This does not, however, affect the states' authority to enact and carry out medical marijuana laws; it just means that patients and providers following these laws could be arrested and prosecuted and have their marijuana seized by federal law enforcement officials. And not only does the case not affect state laws, but state laws will need to be passed regardless of the outcome of the case.

It also is important to note that this case was initiated by medical marijuana patients and caregivers in California who sought an injunction preventing the federal government from arresting them and seizing their property. The federal government has not challenged the validity or constitutionality of the state medical marijuana laws.

In sum, medical marijuana advocates are no worse off than before the litigation was launched—medical marijuana is legal under certain state laws but not under federal law.

[pistillwhipped]

Thanks Fredster. That's the one I've been needing!


Still freaked out.