"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:
(Comments now appear first to last)

Posted by anonymous on 25 Feb 09 12:43 PM EST

What benefits of marijuana use were claimed and why were each of them rejected?

Your Turn! Post a public comment (guidelines):

Name:
Comment: (limit 250 words)
Enter this word (help):	Change

GUIDELINES: 
To keep this feature useful for everyone, please:

1. Keep it clean, courteous, brief, and on-topic. Comments are for discussion of the above article, not general rants or manifestos. Serial comments intended to circumvent the 250-word limit may be deleted.
   
   
2. Do not post promotional web links, personal information or requests for assistance (get help).
   
   
3. Proof your comments carefully, use good spelling and punctuation, and don't use ALL CAPS. Comments are published immediately and cannot be edited.

Deceptive, slanderous and commercial posts are prohibited. We reserve the right to remove comments. (Report a comment).

Have questions or feedback? Contact us.