Patients who use marijuana fear worst if forced to stop

You see how hard our loving government fight this shit they dont want any1 using Cannabis... old news but what has changed

Patients who use marijuana fear worst if forced to stop
By Joan Biskupic, Wendy Koch and John Ritter, USA TODAY

Erin Hildebrandt moved her family from Maryland to Oregon last June for one reason: She wanted to live in a state where she could use marijuana legally.

Diane Monson, of Oroville, Calif., smokes marijuana to relieve back pain caused by a degenerative disease of the spine.
By Max Whittaker, AP

Hildebrandt has Crohn's disease, a chronic inflammation of the digestive tract that gives her nausea. The 34-year-old mother of five underwent surgeries and tried various treatments, but nothing worked until she tried marijuana.

Now, she's a registered marijuana user in Oregon, one of 10 states that has allowed patients who suffer from debilitating illnesses to use the drug as a pain reliever. "Medical marijuana gave me back my life," she said. "I don't do drugs. ... I'm just a mom."

But the Supreme Court's ruling Monday that state medical marijuana laws do not protect Hildebrandt and thousands of other medical-marijuana users from federal prosecution has her fearing the worst. "I moved here to be a law-abiding citizen, and I'm not sure that I am anymore," said Hildebrandt, who lives in Lafayette, about 30 miles southwest of Portland. "I'm afraid I'll have the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) at my door. Yesterday, I would have told so much more (about the treatment). Now, I'm afraid."

Her remarks reflected the concern Monday of medical-marijuana users who said the court's 6-3 decision had left them with a difficult choice: Break the law in order to take a drug that makes life tolerable, or give up marijuana and be miserable. (Related story: Court rejects medical marijuana)

The California patients behind the dispute that was decided by the court, Diane Monson and Angel Raich, were defiant Monday but hopeful that somehow a Republican-led Congress would approve a federal medical-marijuana law â?? even though it has shown no inclination of doing so. (Related story: Pot studies difficult to organize, analyze)

"I'm going to have to be prepared to be arrested," said Monson, 48, of Oroville, Calif., suggesting that she would continue to smoke marijuana to ease back pain caused by a degenerative disease of the spine.

Raich, 39, of Oakland, called on Congress to show compassion for those who have found marijuana uniquely effective in relieving their pain. "Now is the time for Congress to step in to help us sick, disabled and dying patients," said Raich, who has an inoperable brain tumor and a seizure disorder. "Something will be done if it takes every last breath in my body."

In Washington, the message was: Don't look for action anytime soon.

U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., a co-sponsor of a bill that would gives Congress' blessing for states to make their own medical-marijuana laws, said the Supreme Court has "now made it clear that this is up to Congress. If Congress wants to do this, it can."

But Frank and other members of Congress suggested that even in a generation of lawmakers who came of age as marijuana became popular among youths, few are willing to go on record as voting for a bill to allow pot smoking.

"I think support is strong" for a federal medical-marijuana bill, said U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas. "But people are still frightened a little bit by the politics of it. If you had a secret vote in Congress, I'll bet 80% would vote for it."

After taking several hours to digest the ruling, officials in California and other states with similar medical-marijuana laws â?? Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state â?? said they doubted that the decision would lead the U.S. Justice Department to significantly crack down on individual users of medical marijuana, including those who grow the leaf for their own use.

"People shouldn't panic. There aren't going to be many changes," California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said. "Nothing is different today than it was two days ago, in terms of real-world impact."

In Oregon, officials said they would temporarily stop issuing medical marijuana cards to sick people. The cards allow patients with prescriptions to possess the drug. "We want to proceed cautiously until we understand the ramifications of this ruling," said Grant Higginson, a public health officer who oversees Oregon's medical marijuana program.

Thousands of registered users

The Drug Policy Alliance, a group in Oakland that supports more lenient drug laws, estimated that there are more than 113,000 registered users of marijuana in the 10 medical-marijuana states, with more than 100,000 in California alone.

Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug in the USA. About 95 million Americans age 12 and older have used marijuana or hashish in their lifetime, according to the 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. About 15 million people use marijuana regularly, the survey found.

The Bush administration has made marijuana a priority in its war on drugs, casting it as an entry-level drug with no scientifically proven benefits that leads many users to try more dangerous ones such as cocaine and heroin. But DEA Administrator Karen Tandy said after the ruling that the administration's focus would remain on major growers and traffickers.

John Walters, the White House's anti-drug czar, said that those who flagrantly flout federal law will be punished, but he agreed with Tandy's emphasis on major traffickers.

"I don't think anybody makes a career out of arresting and punishing low-level users," he said.

In Washington, Walters, the anti-drug czar, saw the ruling as a rejection of the idea that marijuana is a proven pain reliever.

"The medical marijuana farce is done," he said. " I don't doubt that some people feel better when they use marijuana, but that's not modern science. That's snake oil."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...na-cover_x.htm

I know that in California there have been Federal raids but they make no arrests...just seize the product and grow equipment. The big hang-up is that Fed. law overrides state law. As more and more states legalize the medical end of marijuana you'll see alot less federal intervention.:twocents:

Found a real good article concerning this:

The U.S. Supreme Court's June 6, 2005, ruling in Gonzales v. Raich does not affect states' ability to pass medical marijuana laws -- and it does not overturn the laws now protecting the right of 57 million Americans living in Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington to use medical marijuana legally under state laws. Rhode Island became the 11th medical marijuana state in January 2006 -- the first state to pass a medical marijuana law since the ruling -- and top officials in the 10 other states with medical marijuana laws have publicly affirmed that the Court's decision in Raich does not impact their medical marijuana laws.

Alaska Attorney General David W. Márquez (state press release issued July 21, 2005):

"Attorney General David Márquez has advised the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services that the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Raich, 125 S.Ct. 2195 (2005), does not prohibit the state from registering medical marijuana users."

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer (statement issued June 6, 2005, and letter dated July 15, 2005):

"Today's ruling does not overturn California law permitting the use of medical marijuana, but it does uphold a federal regulatory scheme that contradicts the will of California voters and limits the right of states to provide appropriate medical care for its citizens. Although I am disappointed in the outcome of today's decision, legitimate medical marijuana patients in California must know that state and federal laws are no different today than they were yesterday. Californians spoke overwhelmingly in favor of medical marijuana by passing Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Initiative, and that law still stands in our state."

"(1) Would the implementation of [California's voluntary medical marijuana registry ID program] violate any federal criminal statute, including, but not limited to, aiding and abetting a federal crime? We believe the answer is no. â?¦ DHS's actions in implementing the Medical Marijuana Program are free from criminal prosecution not only because of federalism, but also because the activity itself fails to satisfy the elements of a federal crime."

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers (official press release issued June 30, 2005)

"The Attorney Generalâ??s Office found that the Raich decision, which ruled federal authorities can prosecute people for use and possession of marijuana, does not directly impact the viability of the Colorado constitutional amendment or the enabling statute allowing the program."

Hawaii State Attorney General Mark Bennett (as reported in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, June 7, 2005):

"I suspect that this decision [Gonzales vs. Raich] will not have a great impact on what we do as a state [regarding medical marijuana]."

Maine Assistant Attorney General James Cameron (as reported by the Portland Press Herald, June 7, 2005):

"How will the court decision affect Mainers? Not much, said Assistant Attorney General James Cameron. 'Really nothing has changed,' he said."

Montana Attorney General Mike McGrath (as reported by the Helena Independent Record, June 7, 2005):

"Attorney General Mike McGrath said Monday that [Montana's] law is still valid and the 119 Montanans who have since registered with the state to lawfully use medical marijuana will not be prosecuted. McGrath further said that state officers, even if they were funded with federal dollars, would not go after lawful medical pot smokers in the state.

'We still have a valid law and certainly that would be a defense to any state prosecution,' McGrath said. 'I'm quite sure no county attorney would consider filing a (marijuana) case under these circumstances.'

McGrath said he didn't think local authorities would investigate medical marijuana cases. Even if they did, he said, 'Once they found out the person was following the provisions of I-148, we will advise our drug investigators that that's the end of it.'"

Nevada Attorney General Brian Sandoval (as reported by KRNV-TV, June 8, 2005):

"Nevada's registered medical marijuana users shouldn't expect police at the door even though the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that they can be prosecuted under federal drug laws. That's according to state Attorney General Brian Sandoval. Federal law has long outlawed marijuana use, but no one in Nevada has been charged with using the drug for medicinal purposes since the state allowed use of the drug under a physician's care ... Sandoval says after the ruling it's essentially business as usual in Nevada, which is among the ten states that have legalized the use of medical marijuana to combat or relieve pain in such ailments as cancer, glaucoma and AIDS."

Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers (statement issued June 17, 2005):

"1. Does Gonzales v. Raich invalidate the Oregon statutes authorizing the operation of the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program? No. Raich does not hold that state laws regulating medical marijuana are invalid nor does it require states to repeal existing medical marijuana laws. Additionally, the case does not oblige states to enforce federal laws. The practical effect of Raich in Oregon is to affirm what the Attorney General understood to be the law since the adoption of the Act. ...

2. Should there be operational changes to the program in light of Raich? Since the Raich case does not invalidate the Act, the state has no legal mandate to change the program ... Does the program have a legal duty to communicate to registrants or applicants that state law does not protect patients from potential federal prosecution? No. Neither federal nor state laws require such notification to program participants. It is the Attorney General's belief that the vast majority of patients and caregivers already knew, before Raich was decided, that the Act did not protect against possible federal prosecution."

Vermont Governor James Douglas (as reported by the Associated Press, June 7, 2005):

"Jason Gibbs, a spokesman for Gov. James Douglas, said the Supreme Court ruling would not change the way the state registered people eligible to use marijuana to alleviate their suffering."

Washington State Department of Health spokesman Donn Moyer (as reported by the Associated Press, June 7, 2005):

"In Washington state, the ruling has no practical impact."
http://www.mpp.org/raich/officials.html