"In the case of the Controlled Substances Act, the statute reflects a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception outside the confines of a government-approved research project," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in rejecting the arguments offered by the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative.

The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court after the federal government sought an injunction in 1998 against the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative and five other marijuana distributors in California.

California, Arizona, Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington all have voter-approved medical-marijuana laws.

"It is clear from the text of the act that Congress has made a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception," Thomas wrote. "Unwilling to view this omission as an accident, and unable in any event to override a legislative determination manifest in a statute, we reject the cooperative's argument."

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

Your Turn! Post a public comment (guidelines):

Name:
Comment: (limit 200 words)
Enter this word (help):	Change

GUIDELINES:
Comments are meant for thoughtful public discussion of the article published above. Therefore:

1. Keep it clean, courteous, focused, and on-topic.
   
   
2. Do not post personal requests for help (see resources).
   
   
3. Proof your comments carefully for spelling and punctuation, and don't use ALL CAPS. Comments are published immediately and cannot be edited.
   
   
4. Deceptive, slanderous and commercially-motivated comments are prohibited.
   

We reserve the right to remove comments not conforming to these guidelines. (Report a comment).

Have questions or feedback? Contact us.