Conant v. Walters

In October 2003, the United States Supreme Court let stand a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals permitting physicians to recommend marijuana to patients whom they believe might medically benefit from its use. Conant v Walters, 309 F3.d 629 (2002) thus ended a protracted dispute from the federal government and physicians and patients that began when federal officials, in 1996, threatened to sanction California doctors who recommend marijuana to seriously ill patients under California’s medical marijuana law. In early 1997, a group of physicians and patients successfully sued the federal government claiming that the federal threats unconstitutionally infringed on their First Amendment rights of free speech. The doctors and patients quickly won a federal court injunction against the government. Since 1997 the courts have upheld the right of physicians (and patients) to speak openly and candidly about marijuana’s potential risks and its therapeutic benefits, and have made clear that physicians may, based on their medical judgment, recommend medical marijuana to patients free from federal government threats or interference.

The Conant decision applies with full force and effect throughout the Ninth Circuit, which includes California, Arizona, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Hawaii, Alaska, Montana and Idaho. Each of these states (except Idaho) has enacted laws permitting patients to possess and use medical marijuana when recommended or approved by a physician. (These state laws, however, do not change federal law which continues to criminalize marijuana possession, cultivation, and distribution). Because the Constitution extends nationwide, the First Amendment principles at the heart of the Conant decision apply to physicians throughout the US who wish to recommend marijuana to patients, through other federal circuit courts have yet to (and may never) rule on this issue. The Drug Policy Alliance, in conjunction with the ACLU and the law firm of Altshuler & Berzon, represented the physicians and patients in their efforts to secure their legal rights.

Doctors CAN:

- Discuss fully and candidly the risks and benefits of medical marijuana with patients

- Do one of the following: “Recommend” (or “Approve, Endorse, Suggest, or Advise”, etc.) in accordance with their medical judgment, marijuana for a patients use.

- Record in their patients’ charts discussions about and recommendations of medical marijuana.

- Sign a government form or otherwise inform state or local officials that they have recommended medical marijuana for particular patients.

- Testify in court or through written declaration about recommending medical marijuana for a certain patient.

- Educate themselves about the medical benefits of marijuana, its various clinical applications, and different routes of ingestion.

Doctors CANNOT:

-“Prescribe” medical marijuana.

-Assist patients to obtain marijuana.

-Cultivate or possess marijuana for patient use.

The full decision can be read here at http://www.wamm.org/legal/conant-v-mccaffrey.pdf

More information available at the Drug Policy Alliance.

Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana

About WAMM | FAQ | Recipes | How To Use | WAMMfest

NEWS!

Conant v. Walters