HIV Digest	HIV Digest Archive

The Supreme Court ruled that federal law allows no "medical necessity" exception to its prohibition of the distribution of marijuana. The 8-0 decision was seen as a setback, though not a definitive blow, to the medical marijuana movement, which has succeeded in passing ballot initiatives in eight states. The ruling neither overturns those initiatives nor addresses any question of state law. Rather, it affirms that marijuana's listing as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act means that it "has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States."

View our poll archive

In the opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court said the Ninth Circuit had misread federal law when it ruled that an Oakland, California, cooperative could raise medical necessity as a defense against the federal government's attempts to close it down. But the broad language of Thomas' opinion suggested there could be no acceptable medical use of marijuana in any setting, not just in the context of distribution by large organizations. For that reason, Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg refused to sign it, instead filing a separate concurring opinion. Stevens said that Thomas' opinion showed inadequate "respect for the sovereign states that comprise our federal union."

Editor's Note: from the New York Times