Conant v. Walters

Last updated

Conant v. Walters
Seal of the United States Courts, Ninth Judicial Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Full case nameDr. Marcus Conant, et al. v. John P. Walters, Director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, et al.
ArguedApril 8, 2002
DecidedOctober 29, 2002
Citation(s)309 F.3d 629
Case history
Prior historyConant v. McCaffrey, 2000 WL 1281174 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2000)
Subsequent history Certiorari denied, 540 U.S. 946(2003)
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Mary M. Schroeder, Betty Binns Fletcher, Alex Kozinski
Case opinions
MajoritySchroeder, joined by a unanimous court
ConcurrenceKozinski

Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2002), [1] is a legal case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the right of physicians to recommend medical marijuana. [2] The Court of Appeals affirmed the earlier decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, which was filed under the caption Conant v. McCaffrey. [3] Though the case involved chronic patients with untreatable diseases, the decision does not name these conditions as a prerequisite, nor does it limit drugs which may or may not be illegal.

Contents

Background

The plaintiffs created a class action suit on behalf of licensed California physicians treating patients with any of several severe and chronic conditions [4] who discuss, recommend, or approve the medical use of marijuana for medical reasons. The class also includes all such patients. The named plaintiffs include eleven physicians, [5] a physician group, [6] an AIDS patient organization, [7] and six patients with terminal illnesses, including one who died during the course of the suit. [8]

The case arose from two events: the November 1996 passage of California Proposition 215 which authorized medical marijuana, and a December 30, 1996 response to the law by the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy which said

a practitioner's action of recommending or prescribing Schedule I controlled substances is not consistent with the 'public interest' (as that phrase is used in the federal Controlled Substances Act) and will lead to administrative action by the Drug Enforcement Administration to revoke the practitioner's registration. [3]

The statement accompanied authorization for the U.S. Inspector General for Health and Human Services to exclude individuals from participation in Medicare and Medicaid programs, such as physicians who recommend marijuana to patients for medical purposes. Clarification two months later affirmed that mere discussion of any drugs with a patient was not grounds for sanction, but affirmed that physicians "may not intentionally provide their patients with oral or written statements in order to enable them to obtain controlled substances in violation of federal law."

District Court decision

The district court's decision acknowledged that the government has a legitimate concern that physicians might recommend marijuana in bad faith. However, physicians in good faith using honest medical judgment should not fear DEA sanctions. [3] Furthermore,

Given the doctrine of constitutional doubt, the government's construction of the Controlled Substances Act cannot stand. The government should be permanently enjoined from (i) revoking any physician class member's DEA registration merely because the doctor makes a recommendation for the use of medical marijuana based on a sincere medical judgment and (ii) from initiating any investigation solely on that ground. The injunction should apply whether or not the doctor anticipates that the patient will, in turn, use his or her recommendation to obtain marijuana in violation of federal law. [3]

Court of Appeals decision

The government appealed the District Court decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which issued its decision in 2002. [1]

Again the doctors and patients won and the federal government lost, while Judge Alex Kozinski's concurrence also brought in the First Amendment right of patients to hear accurate information from their doctors, and the state of California's right to make its own laws without being subverted by federal commandeering. The ruling set a precedent protecting doctors, patients, and state medical marijuana programs in the ten states of the Ninth Circuit. The government again appealed the case, but the Supreme Court declined to take the appeal in a brief notice dated October 14, 2003. [9]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1996 California Proposition 215</span> California law permitting medical marijuana

Proposition 215, or the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, is a California law permitting the use of medical cannabis despite marijuana's lack of the normal Food and Drug Administration testing for safety and efficacy. It was enacted, on November 5, 1996, by means of the initiative process, and passed with 5,382,915 (55.6%) votes in favor and 4,301,960 (44.4%) against.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ozone therapy</span> Unproven alternative medicine

Ozone therapy is an alternative medical treatment that introduces ozone or ozonides to the body. The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prohibits all medical uses of ozone "in any medical condition for which there is no proof of safety and effectiveness", stating "ozone is a toxic gas with no known useful medical application in specific, adjunctive, or preventive therapy. In order for ozone to be effective as a germicide, it must be present in a concentration far greater than that which can be safely tolerated by man and animals."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act</span> Proposed changes to the legal status of cannabis in U.S. federal law

In the United States, the removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act is a proposed legal and administrative change in cannabis-related law at the federal level. It has been proposed repeatedly since 1972. The category is the most tightly restricted category reserved for drugs that have "no currently accepted medical use."

Matthias Rath is a doctor, businessman, and vitamin salesman. He earned his medical degree in Germany. Rath claims that a program of nutritional supplements, including formulations that he sells, can treat or cure diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and HIV/AIDS. These claims are not supported by any reliable medical research. Rath runs the Dr. Rath Health Foundation, has been closely associated with Health Now, Inc., and founded the Dr. Rath Research Institute.

<i>Wilk v. American Medical Assn</i> 1990 federal antitrust suit

Wilk v. American Medical Association, 895 F.2d 352, was a federal antitrust suit brought against the American Medical Association (AMA) and 10 co-defendants by chiropractor Chester A. Wilk, DC, and four co-plaintiffs. It resulted in a ruling against the AMA.

Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court which ruled that the United States Attorney General cannot enforce the federal Controlled Substances Act against physicians who prescribed drugs, in compliance with Oregon state law, to terminally ill patients seeking to end their lives, commonly referred to as assisted suicide. It was the first major case heard by the Roberts Court under the new Chief Justice of the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Brownie Mary</span> American medical cannabis activist (1922–1999)

Mary Jane Rathbun, popularly known as Brownie Mary, was an American medical cannabis rights activist. As a hospital volunteer at San Francisco General Hospital, she became known for baking and distributing cannabis brownies to AIDS patients. Along with activist Dennis Peron, Rathbun lobbied for the legalization of cannabis for medical use, and she helped pass San Francisco Proposition P (1991) and California Proposition 215 (1996) to achieve those goals. She also contributed to the establishment of the San Francisco Cannabis Buyers Club, the first medical cannabis dispensary in the United States.

In United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483 (2001), the United States Supreme Court rejected the common-law medical necessity defense to crimes enacted under the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970, regardless of their legal status under the laws of states such as California that recognize a medical use for marijuana. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative was represented by Gerald Uelmen.

California Senate Bill 420 was a bill introduced by John Vasconcellos of the California State Senate, and subsequently passed by the California State Legislature and signed by Governor Gray Davis in 2003 "pursuant to the powers reserved to the State of California and its people under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution." It clarified the scope and application of California Proposition 215, also known as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, and established the California medical marijuana program. The bill's title is notable because "420" is a common phrase used in cannabis culture.

Expanded access or compassionate use is the use of an unapproved drug or medical device under special forms of investigational new drug applications (IND) or IDE application for devices, outside of a clinical trial, by people with serious or life-threatening conditions who do not meet the enrollment criteria for the clinical trial in progress.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legal history of cannabis in the United States</span>

In the United States, increased restrictions and labeling of cannabis as a poison began in many states from 1906 onward, and outright prohibitions began in the 1920s. By the mid-1930s cannabis was regulated as a drug in every state, including 35 states that adopted the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act. The first national regulation was the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Marcus Conant</span> American dermatologist

Marcus Augustine Conant is an American dermatologist and one of the first physicians to diagnose and treat Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) in 1981. He helped create one of the largest private AIDS clinics, was a founder of the San Francisco AIDS Foundation, and his work contributed to development of some of today's top HIV medications. He has written over 70 publications on the treatment of AIDS.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cannabis in Oregon</span> Use of cannabis in Oregon

Cannabis in Oregon is legal for both medical and recreational use. In recent decades, the U.S. state of Oregon has had a number of legislative, legal, and cultural events surrounding use of cannabis. Oregon was the first state to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of cannabis, and among the first to authorize its use for medical purposes. An attempt to recriminalize possession of small amounts of cannabis was turned down by Oregon voters in 1997.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Medical cannabis in the United States</span> Use of cannabis for medical purposes in the United States

In the United States, the use of cannabis for medical purposes is legal in 38 states, four out of five permanently inhabited U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia, as of March 2023. Ten other states have more restrictive laws limiting THC content, for the purpose of allowing access to products that are rich in cannabidiol (CBD), a non-psychoactive component of cannabis. There is significant variation in medical cannabis laws from state to state, including how it is produced and distributed, how it can be consumed, and what medical conditions it can be used for.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dronabinol</span> Generic name of Δ9-THC in medicine

Dronabinol (INN), also known under the trade names Marinol and Syndros, is a generic name for the molecule of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in the pharmaceutical context. It has indications as an appetite stimulant, antiemetic, and sleep apnea reliever and is approved by the FDA as safe and effective for HIV/AIDS-induced anorexia and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting only.

Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that, under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if state law allows its use for medicinal purposes.

The Food and Drug Administration is a federal agency of the United States, formed in 1930.

Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020, is a 2015 en banc decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, on remand from a 2014 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court reversing a previous Federal Circuit decision in the case. This is the most recent in a string of decisions in the case that concern the proper legal standard for determining patent infringement liability when multiple actors are involved in carrying out the claimed infringement of a method patent and no single accused infringer has performed all of the steps. In the 2015 remand decision, the Federal Circuit expanded the scope of vicarious liability in such cases, holding that one actor could be held liable for the acts of another actor "when an alleged infringer conditions participation in an activity or receipt of a benefit upon performance of a step or steps of a patented method and establishes the manner or timing of that performance." In addition, the court held that where multiple "actors form a joint enterprise, all can be charged with the acts of the other[s], rendering each liable for the steps performed by the other[s] as if each is a single actor."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 Florida Amendment 2</span> Ballot measure in Florida legalizing medical marijuana

The Florida Medical Marijuana Legalization Initiative, also known as Amendment 2, was approved by voters in the Tuesday, November 8, 2016, general election in the State of Florida. The bill required a super-majority vote to pass, with at least 60% of voters voting for support of a state constitutional amendment. Florida already had a medical marijuana law in place, but only for those who are terminally ill and with less than a year left to live. The goal of Amendment 2 is to alleviate those suffering from these medical conditions: cancer, epilepsy, glaucoma, positive status for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), Crohn's disease, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, chronic nonmalignant pain caused by a qualifying medical condition or that originates from a qualified medical condition or other debilitating medical conditions comparable to those listed. Under Amendment 2, the medical marijuana will be given to the patient if the physician believes that the medical use of marijuana would likely outweigh the potential health risks for a patient. Smoking the medication was not allowed under a statute passed by the Florida State Legislature, however this ban was struck down by Leon County Circuit Court Judge Karen Gievers on May 25, 2018.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legal history of cannabis in Canada</span>

The Cannabis Act (C-45) of June, 2018 paved the way for the legalization of cannabis in Canada on 17 October 2018. Police and prosecution services in all Canadian jurisdictions are currently capable of pursuing criminal charges for cannabis marketing without a licence issued by Health Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that the federal Parliament has the power to criminalize the possession of cannabis and that doing so does not infringe upon the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Ontario Court of Appeal and the Superior Court of Ontario have, however, held that the absence of a statutory provision for medical marijuana is unconstitutional, and to that extent the federal law is of no force and/or effect if a prescription is obtained. The recreational use of cannabis has been legalized by the federal government, and took effect on 17 October 2018.

References

  1. 1 2 Conant v. Walters, 309F.3d629 (9th Cir.2002).
  2. "Physicians' Right to Recommend Medical Marijuana: Conant v. Walters". Canna Law Blog. Harris Bricken. March 4, 2016. Retrieved May 11, 2018.
  3. 1 2 3 4 Conant v. McCaffrey, 2000WL1281174 (N.D. Cal.September 7, 2000).
  4. The complaint enumerates:
    • severe nausea (commonly associated with HIV/AIDS and cancer)
    • wasting syndrome or anorexia (commonly associated with HIV/AIDS)
    • increased intraocular pressure (commonly associated with glaucoma)
    • seizures or muscle spasms associated with a chronic, debilitating condition (commonly associated with epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, and paraplegia/quadriplegia/hemiplegia)
    • severe chronic pain (commonly associated with paraplegia/quadriplegia/ hemiplegia, HIV/AIDS, metastasized cancers, and cervical disk disease)
  5. The physicians include Dr. Marcus Conant, Dr. Donald Northfelt, Dr. Arnold Leff, Dr. Debasish Tripathy, Dr. Neil Flynn, Dr. Stephen Follansbee, Dr. Robert Scott III, Dr. Stephen O'Brien, Dr. Milton Estes, Dr. Howard Maccabee, and Dr. Allan Joseph Flach.
  6. Bay Area Physicians for Human Rights
  7. Being Alive: People with HIV/AIDS Action Coalition, Inc.
  8. Patients include Keith Vines, Judith Cushner, Valerie Corral, Dan Kane, Michael Ferrucci, and Jo Daily, who died from cancer after this suit was filed.
  9. 540 U.S. 946(2003).