Drug Policy Alliance Logo
About Take Action News Publications and Library Blog Contact Donate Events Community eStore
Home > News > Medical Marijuana Questions Return to Federal Court  
News News

Right Side Donate
4px Padding
Conference 2007 Archive

Marijuana: The Facts
What's Wrong With the Drug War?
Safety First: Parents, Teens and Drugs
Drug By Drug
State By State
Reducing Harm: Treatment and Beyond
Drugs, Police & the Law
Communities Affected
Drug Policy Around the World
Publications and Library
What People are Talking About

Your Email
> Manage Subscriptions
What People are Talking About

Join the Drug Policy Alliance's work to promote drug policies based on science, compassion, health, and human rights.
Donate
> Get Involved
In this Section
bottom
The Latest
No More Marijuana Arrests

Send A Message
Full Text Resources

> more

Featured News

Editorial: Six Minutes With Barack-- Willamette Week (Portland, OR) [05/15/08]

> more news

 

Suggested Web sites
> more links

  

Medical Marijuana Questions Return to Federal Court
Friday, March 31, 2006

Angel Raich is back in court with a new strategy less than a year after the Supreme Court decided that the federal government can prosecute medical marijuana patients, even in states where medical marijuana is legal.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard new arguments in the case March 27, 2006, as part of an appeal DPA is helping to fund. The new arguments deal with the assertion that Raich should be allowed to use medical marijuana because she has the fundamental right to avoid death and severe pain under the Fifth and Ninth Amendments.

These arguments did not factor into the 2005 Supreme Court ruling, which dealt strictly with questions of interstate commerce. The Ninth Circuit sided with Raich on the interstate commerce issue when it heard the case in 2003 before it went to the Supreme Court. Raich's argument was that medical marijuana grown and consumed within California could not be considered to involve interstate commerce, and thus was not under federal jurisdiction.

The Ninth Circuit may not rule on the new arguments for several months.



Provide Feedback on this Page:

* 1.




 2.



 3.



   Please leave this field empty