{"title":"临终关怀的新闻","authors":"","doi":"10.1177/104990910502200403","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.)","PeriodicalId":7716,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine®","volume":"4 1","pages":"252 - 253"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hospice news\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/104990910502200403\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"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.)\",\"PeriodicalId\":7716,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine®\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"252 - 253\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2005-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine®\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/104990910502200403\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine®","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/104990910502200403","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
今年6月,美国最高法院裁定,用于缓解疼痛和减少化疗副作用的自制大麻的使用不受监管,因此是非法的,将受到起诉。法院不顾下级法院的裁决,以6票赞成、3票反对两名加州妇女种植和使用大麻来缓解与严重疾病有关的症状。这次投票被视为医用大麻支持者的一次重大挫折,也引发了作为州权利问题的争议,因为根据加州法规,医用大麻是合法的。大法官约翰·保罗·史蒂文斯(John Paul Stevens)在该案中代表法院多数人发言,称该裁决是对1970年《受控物质法案》(Controlled Substances Act)规定的联邦权力的有效运用。史蒂文斯说,国会监管各州商业活动的权力包括禁止在当地种植和使用大麻的权力,尽管这符合加州法律。最高法院的判决受到布什政府的欢迎,布什政府对加州下级法院的判决提出了上诉。下级法院的判决对两名妇女有利。下级法院裁定,用于医疗目的的大麻不同于毒品贩运;然而,政府担心,放松对大麻使用的管制将使对其他非法物质的使用难以管制,并可能导致多达10万加州人出于医疗目的使用大麻。首席大法官威廉·伦奎斯特和大法官桑德拉·戴·奥康纳和克拉伦斯·托马斯持不同意见。“这个案例体现了国家作为实验室的作用,”奥康纳写道。“依靠国会的抽象主张,法院支持将在自己家中种植少量大麻用于自己的医疗用途定为联邦犯罪,”她说。“这种过度干预扼杀了一些州的明确选择……以不同的方式管理医用大麻。(来源:路透社健康新闻,2005年6月6日)
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.)