Today's Date: Add To Favorites
Court upholds ban on medical marijuana
Court Watch | 2007/03/15 09:04

A California woman with an inoperable brain tumor may not smoke marijuana to ease her pain even though California voters have approved its medicinal use, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Wednesday. In a much-watched test case, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found there is no fundamental right to marijuana for medical purposes. The ruling agreed with a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision.

The split three-judge opinion from Judge Harry Pregerson expressed sympathy for some arguments by plaintiff Angel Raich, 41, an Oakland resident whose doctor testified she could die if she stopped smoking pot. But the ruling backed the 1970 federal Controlled Substances Act barring marijuana.

Raich, who suffers from many ailments, says marijuana keeps her alive by easing pain and bolstering appetite.

"Today I found out I am basically a dead man walking," Raich, who once worked as an accountant and massage therapist, told Reuters. "Today the court said I don't have the constitutional right to basically stay alive."

The mother of two said U.S. officials had never moved to arrest her or bar her from using marijuana and said she would continue to do so every two hours. "I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't," she said.

Raich said she would lobby Congress in Washington to change U.S. law. The court said use of the drug for medical purposes was gaining support but federal law still banned it.

"We agree with Raich that medical and conventional wisdom that recognizes the use of marijuana for medical purposes is gaining traction in the law as well," the judge wrote.

The ruling acknowledged the law could change if legislators reconsider the issue.

"Although that day has not yet dawned, considering that during the last 10 years 11 states have legalized the use of medical marijuana, that day may be upon on us sooner than expected," Pregerson said.

Voters in California, the nation's most populous state, became the first to approve medical marijuana in 1996, putting it in direct conflict with federal law. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has admitting using marijuana in the past.



[PREV] [1] ..[7582][7583][7584][7585][7586][7587][7588][7589][7590].. [8292] [NEXT]
All
Class Action
Bankruptcy
Biotech
Breaking Legal News
Business
Corporate Governance
Court Watch
Criminal Law
Health Care
Human Rights
Insurance
Intellectual Property
Labor & Employment
Law Center
Law Promo News
Legal Business
Legal Marketing
Litigation
Medical Malpractice
Mergers & Acquisitions
Political and Legal
Politics
Practice Focuses
Securities
Elite Lawyers
Tax
Featured Law Firms
Tort Reform
Venture Business News
World Business News
Law Firm News
Attorneys in the News
Events and Seminars
Environmental
Legal Careers News
Patent Law
Consumer Rights
International
Legal Spotlight
Current Cases
State Class Actions
Federal Class Actions
New Hampshire courts hear 2 ..
PA high court orders countie..
Tight US House races in Cali..
North Carolina Attorney Gene..
Republicans take Senate majo..
What to know about the unpre..
A man who threatened to kill..
Ford cuts 2024 earnings guid..
Kenya’s deputy president pl..
South Korean court acquits f..
Supreme Court grapples with ..
Supreme Court leaves in plac..
Kentucky sheriff accused of ..
New rules regarding election..
North Carolina appeals court..


Class action or a representative action is a form of lawsuit in which a large group of people collectively bring a claim to court and/or in which a class of defendants is being sued. This form of collective lawsuit originated in the United States and is still predominantly a U.S. phenomenon, at least the U.S. variant of it. In the United States federal courts, class actions are governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule. Since 1938, many states have adopted rules similar to the FRCP. However, some states like California have civil procedure systems which deviate significantly from the federal rules; the California Codes provide for four separate types of class actions. As a result, there are two separate treatises devoted solely to the complex topic of California class actions. Some states, such as Virginia, do not provide for any class actions, while others, such as New York, limit the types of claims that may be brought as class actions. They can construct your law firm a brand new website, lawyer website templates and help you redesign your existing law firm site to secure your place in the internet.
St. Louis Missouri Criminal Defense Lawyer
St. Charles DUI Attorney
www.lynchlawonline.com
Lorain Elyria Divorce Lawyer
www.loraindivorceattorney.com
Legal Document Services in Los Angeles, CA
Best Legal Document Preparation
www.tllsg.com
Car Accident Lawyers
Sunnyvale, CA Personal Injury Attorney
www.esrajunglaw.com
East Greenwich Family Law Attorney
Divorce Lawyer - Erica S. Janton
www.jantonfamilylaw.com/about
St. Louis Missouri Criminal Defense Lawyer
St. Charles DUI Attorney
www.lynchlawonline.com
Connecticut Special Education Lawyer
www.fortelawgroup.com
  Law Firm Directory
 
 
 
© ClassActionTimes.com. All rights reserved.

The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Class Action Times as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance. Affordable Law Firm Web Design