>Sender: >To: >X-Original-Message-ID: <139801befe3e$631c9e80$9acf69cf@pacbell.net> >From: "Peter McWilliams" >Subject: The AP story on the 9th Circuit ruling >Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 16:19:06 -0700 >X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 >X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 > > >Medical Marijuana Issue Raised > >.c The Associated Press > > By BOB EGELKO > >SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A federal appeals court Monday raised the possibility >that clubs that provide medical marijuana might be reopened, saying >``medical >necessity'' could make some patients exempt from laws against pot. > >In a rebuff to the Clinton administration, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of >Appeals told a judge who had issued an injunction against such groups to >consider exempting patients and doctors who could show ``medical >necessity.'' >The injunction against six medical marijuana clubs had been issued at the >request of the Justice Department. > >The court did not order the exception but said there was evidence that would >justify it. > >One of the six Northern California clubs, the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' >Cooperative, ``has identified a strong public interest in the availability of >a doctor-prescribed treatment that would help ameliorate the condition and >relieve the pain and suffering of a large group of persons with serious or >fatal illnesses,'' the court said in a 3-0 ruling. > >The court noted that the ``necessity'' defense - showing that breaking the >law was the only way to prevent a more serious harm - would be available if >federal authorities prosecuted patients or club officials for violating >federal drug laws. > >Because the government sought an injunction against future lawbreaking >instead of prosecuting anyone, the order should be worded to exclude conduct >that likely would be allowed if a person cited the necessity defense at >trial, the court said. > >To be eligible for such an exemption, patients would have to show that they >have tried legal alternatives to marijuana and found that they don't work or >cause intolerable side effects, the court said. > >The ruling was applauded by Robert Raich, a lawyer for the Oakland >cooperative, which served about 2,000 patients before being closed by court >order last year. It later reopened as a center for hemp products and patient >support, but not for marijuana distribution. > >``The 9th Circuit is correctly recognizing that cannabis has medical efficacy >to a large class of patients and that it should be recognized under federal >law under the medical necessity defense,'' Raich said. > >He said the ruling could lead to the reopening of the Oakland cooperative for >the limited number of patients who could show medical necessity. > >No one was immediately available at the Justice Department to respond to the >ruling, a spokesman said. > >Medical marijuana clubs sprang up around California after the November 1996 >approval of Proposition 215, which allowed patients with serious illnesses to >obtain and use marijuana at their doctors' recommendation without being >prosecuted under state law. The drug is used to relieve pain and other >effects of AIDS, cancer and certain other diseases and their treatments. > >The Justice Department responded by suing six Northern California clubs, >saying the absolute federal ban on marijuana distribution overrode >Proposition 215. > >U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer agreed, issuing a contempt order last year >that forced four of the clubs to stop distributing marijuana. Two of the >clubs, in Fairfax and Ukiah remain open because the government failed to >present evidence that they were distributing marijuana at the time. Other >informal organizations scattered around the state also continue to supply >medicinal marijuana. > > > > >================================================================ > >This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . >To unsubscribe, E-mail to: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------