Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-06T17:47:28.772Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Courts Protect Ninth Circuit Doctors Who Recommend Medical Marijuana Use

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Vonn Christenson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On October 14, 2003, the Supreme Court announced that it would not review a Ninth Circuit Appeals Court ruling that enjoined the federal government from punishing doctors who recommend medical use of marijuana to their patients. The Ninth Circuit case, Conan v.Walters, drew a fine line in distinguishing betweendispensing information and dispensing controlled substances, and held that [p]hysicians must be able to speak frankly and openly to patients under the First Amendments. Although unauthorized use and distribution of marijuana is prohibited, the court found that a doctor s recommendation does not itself constitute illegal conduct that doctors should be free to recommend the use of medical marijuana if based on sincere medical judgment, without fear of retaliation by a government probe or prosecution.

Type
Recent Developments in Health Law
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , Spring 2004 , pp. 174 - 177
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2002), cert, denied, 124 S. Ct. 387 (2003) (No. 03–40).Google Scholar
Id. at 636.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Id., citing Conant v. McCaffrey, No. C 97–00139 WHA, 2000 WL 1281174, at *16 (N.D. Cal.).Google Scholar
See 21 U.S.C. § 801 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conant, 2000 WL 1281174, at 1, quoting 21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(1) (2000).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id. at *2.Google Scholar
Id., citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4) (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See 21 U.S.C. § 823(f).Google Scholar
Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11362.5(b)(1)(A) (1996).Google Scholar
Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11362.5(c) (1996).Google Scholar
Conant, 2000 WL 1281174, at *2, quoting Joint Stmt. Undisputed Facts § 4.Google Scholar
Id. at *5, citing Joint Stmt. Undisputed Facts § 6.Google Scholar
Conant v. McCaffrey, 172 F.R.D. 681, 691 (N.D. Cal. 1997).Google Scholar
See Conant, 2000 WL 1281174, at *6.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Id.Google Scholar
Id. at *3, quoting Joint Stmt. Undisputed Facts § 7.Google Scholar
See Conant, 172 F.R.D. at 681.Google Scholar
Id. at 685.Google Scholar
Conant, 2000 WL 1281174, at *1.Google Scholar
Id. at 14.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id. at *15.Google Scholar
Id. at *16.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Conant, 309 F.3d at 634.Google Scholar
Id. at 632, citing 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2000).Google Scholar
Id. at 636.Google Scholar
See Id., petition for cert. filed, 2003 WL 22428466 (U.S. June 7, 2003) (No. 03–40).Google Scholar
See Id., cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 387 (U.S. Oct. 14, 2003) (No. 03–40).Google Scholar
Egelko, B., “Court Victory for Medical Pot Law / Justices Let State’s Doctors Discuss Patients’ Options,”San Francisco Chronicle, October 15, 2003, at Al (2003 WL 3765584).Google Scholar
Lane, C., “U.S. Appeal of Marijuana Case Rejected”, Washington Post, October 15, 2003, at Al (2003 WL 62222963).Google Scholar
Frieden, J., “Medical Marijuana Ruling Hailed by Some Doctors: Seen as Free Speech Issue,” Internal Medicine News 36, no. 23, (2003): At 6 (2003 WL 14661974).Google Scholar
Egelko, , supra note 35.Google Scholar
Frieden, , supra note 37.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Egelko, , supra note. 35.Google Scholar
Barbars, Feder, Ostrov, , “Top Court Hands Victory to Backers of Medicinal Pot,” San Jose Mercury News, October 15, 2003, at 1 (2003 WL 65934454).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Frieden, , supra note 37.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar