News Release

October 18, 2004

Media Contact: (202) 789-5200

Cato brief urges protection of patients' rights in medical marijuana case
Can the federal government ban effective treatments for seriously ill patients?

WASHINGTON—On October 13, the Cato Institute filed a friend-of-the-court brief before the Supreme Court in the medical marijuana case, Ashcroft v. Raich, which the justices are scheduled to hear on November 29. The case asks the Court to uphold a California law legalizing physician-prescribed medical marijuana.

Cato's brief is written by Professor Douglas W. Kmiec, a highly respected conservative legal scholar and a top constitutional lawyer for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Kmiec, a former dean of Catholic University Law School, is a professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University Law School.

"This case asks key questions about the proper role of the federal government," says Mark Moller, editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review and co-counsel for Cato in this case. "Angel Raich, like many others in chronic, severe pain, has no effective remedy unless medicinal marijuana remains available. Yet the federal government wants to take away Ms. Raich's medication, based on spurious claims that her treatment somehow 'affects' the national 'economy.'"

"That argument is not just short on compassion, it's wrong on the law," adds Moller. "Under our Constitution, health care decisions like Ms. Raich's are a matter for physicians and their patients — not government bureaucrats in Washington."

According to the friend-of-the-court brief filed by the Cato Institute, the case offers the Court the opportunity to "keep faith" with the Constitution, by "protecting California['s] . . . power to address the individual health needs of her citizens."

Marijuana is effective in curing the debilitating side-effects of cancer treatment and in combating chronic illnesses like AIDS, anorexia, and multiple sclerosis. Its availability is a matter of life-or-death for Angel Raich — who suffers from scoliosis and an inoperable brain tumor.

The case could have implications for all Americans, not just Californians. Thirty-five states have passed laws recognizing the medicinal value of marijuana. "If the federal government can interfere with the doctor-patient relationship where there is no national interest at stake," warns Moller, "then citizens will have lost an important freedom — control over their own health and well-being."

For more information on Raich's case or to arrange an interview with Moller, contact the Cato media relations department at 202-789-5200 or media@cato.org.