dictionary

Charles Bierbauer: High Court rejects medical marijuana

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that federal law does not allow for a "medical exception" to the Controlled Substances Act that would permit distribution of marijuana to patients who claim a medical benefit from its use.

The ruling struck down a California law that allowed groups such as the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative to distribute marijuana to patients who have a doctor's approval.

CNN Senior Washington Correspondent Charles Bierbauer discussed the decision Monday with CNN Live Today's Natalie Allen.

DOCUMENT Read the decision, U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop. (FindLaw)

IN-DEPTH • Justice Profiles • Supreme Court Home Page

LEGAL RESOURCES   FindLaw Supreme Court Center   • Court History   • The Justices   • Landmark Decisions FindLaw opinion database: Supreme Court opinions from 1893-2002 Search by party: Search by full-text:

Q: Representatives from this Oakland Cannabis Buyers Co-op say this is not the end, this is the end of Phase One, and they'll continue to fight. Where do they stand now in this fight with many states wanting this and the Supreme Court saying it can't be done?

BIERBAUER: They raise the possibility of bringing up other constitutional issues and things such as Commerce Clause issues, which were not addressed by the Supreme Court in this particular ruling. What the Supreme Court does, as a matter of practice, is address the statute first and the Constitution second. If it can deal with an issue by only addressing the statute, it will do so. So I cannot tell you if this court would even take up a constitutional question on this, although it is well within the prerogative of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative and its lawyers to raise those questions.

The court has found very clearly and very succinctly that the Controlled Substances Act, which covers not only marijuana but all drugs that are considered illegal drugs, lists marijuana as one of the most controlled substances. The justices ruled that marijuana has no medical use under the law as written, so there can be no medical exceptions. It is a rather clear-cut ruling but within narrow parameters.

So it is really a question of what other issues might be raised, and whether the court would take up those questions after it has already said that federal law presides and prevails over state law here.

Q: Has the U.S. Congress shown any interest in changing the law involving medical marijuana use and are there no studies to show that the drug has medicinal uses?

BIERBAUER: There is no question that there are individuals who say 'It helps me, I feel better, I can keep food down, I can keep pills down, I can function when I get up in the morning.' It's all anecdotal evidence, and people who argue against this will say there is no clinical information and there haven't been sufficient studies to prove that there is a pattern of effectiveness in medical use of marijuana.

The Supreme Court was extremely deferential to Congress in this ruling. Justices said that Congress itself has stated the only exception it would permit was government-supported research projects, and did not address anything that dealt with establishing a medical necessity. The ruling said Congress did not envision a medical exception and the court was not going to change that.

For more LAW news, myCNN.com will bring you news from the areas and subjects you select.

Supreme Court of the United States
FindLaw Supreme Court Center
Legal Information Institute: Supreme Court Collection - Cornell University
On the Docket 2000-2001
The Supreme Court Historical Society
Jurist Guide to the Supreme Court - University of Pittsburgh

Note: Pages will open in a new browser window

External sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive.