Click here for more current events lesson plans matched to national standards.

How to use this story in a classroom...

Online NewsHour Special Report:
Supreme Court Watch

Patients and a legal expert discuss the use of medical marijuana in California. 11.29.04

Experts debate the Supreme Court decision not to hear a case on the use of medical marijuana. 10.14.03

A report on the Supreme Court ruling against California's medical marijuana law. 05.14.01

Browse the NewsHour's coverage of law.

NewsHour Extra:
Top Story: Supreme Court Hears Medical Marijuana Arguments. 12.01.04.

Lesson Plan: Medical Marijuana: Legitimate Use or Legalized Abuse

Outside Links:
U.S. Supreme Court

Extra is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

The Supreme Court has ruled the government can prosecute people who use marijuana to treat medical conditions -- a blow to medical marijuana advocates and a victory for the Bush administration.

Printer-friendly versions: PDF

The high court said the federal government can prevent sick people from using homegrown marijuana that has been prescribed by a physician to prevent pain.

The 6-3 decision trumps the laws of 10 states that allow patients to use the drug to treat a variety of illnesses, from HIV to cancer.

Writing the majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens said the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 was an appropriate use of federal power by the Congress "even as applied to the troubling facts of this case."

The case was that of two ill California women, Angel Raich and Diane Monson, who sued for the right to use, grow or obtain marijuana for medical purposes without fear of federal prosecution.

They won a lower court ruling in 2003 but the case was appealed by the Bush administration.

But the ruling suggests that the origin of marijuana is inconsequential.

Stevens said Congress' right to regulate commerce among states, given in the commerce clause of the Constitution, includes the authority to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law, Reuters reported.

He also raised concerns about abuse of marijuana laws.

"Our cases have taught us that there are some unscrupulous physicians who overprescribe when it is sufficiently profitable to do so," he said.

Justice Stevens encouraged patients who felt they needed medical marijuana to explore other legal options and advocate changing federal marijuana laws.

"But perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress," Stephens wrote.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the dissenting opinion for the three judges who did not agree with the majority opinion, arguing that states should be allowed to set their own rules.

"The states' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens," O'Connor said in a ruling that included other states' rights advocates Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas.

This case was a challenging one for conservative members of the court who have pushed to expand states' rights in recent rulings.

They earlier invalidated federal laws dealing with gun possession near schools and violence against women on the grounds the activity was too local to justify federal intrusion.

O'Connor said the court was overreaching in its decision "making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one's own home for one's own medicinal use," the Associated Press reported.

The ruling will have immediate consequences for some Californians.

"I'm going to have to be prepared to be arrested," plaintiff Diane Monson, who suffers from degenerative spine disease and grows her marijuana in her backyard, told the AP.

-- Compiled by Annie Schleicher for NewsHour Extra

Debating The News
My Story
Editorial Page
Poetry

Click here to find out how your essay or poem could appear on NewsHour Extra.