Hospice news

Abstract

In June, the US Supreme Court ruled that use of homegrown marijuana prescribed to relieve pain and reduce the side effects of chemotherapy could not be regulated and was, thus, illegal and subject to prosecution. Setting aside a lower court ruling, the court ruled in a 6-3 decision against two California women who were growing and using marijuana for symptom relief related to serious illnesses. The vote is seen as a major setback for proponents of medical marijuana and also stirs up controversy as a states rights issue, since the use of marijuana for medical purposes is legal under California statute. Justice John Paul Stevens spoke for the court majority in the case, citing that the ruling was a valid use of federal power under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. Stevens said the power of Congress to regulate commerce among the states includes the authority to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana despite its compliance with California law. The Supreme Court opinion was welcomed by the Bush administration, which appealed the lower court decision in California that found in favor of the two women. The lower court had ruled that marijuana used for medical purposes was different from drug trafficking; however, the administration feared that deregulating marijuana use would make it difficult to regulate use of other illegal substances and might lead to as many as 100,000 Californians using marijuana for medical purposes. Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Clarence Thomas dissented. “This case exemplifies the role of states as laboratories,” O’Connor wrote. “Relying on Congress’ abstract assertions, the court has endorsed making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one’s own home for one’s own medicinal use,” she said. “This overreaching stifles an express choice by some states . . . to regulate medical marijuana differently.” (Source: Reuters Health News, June 6, 2005.)