RELIEVING PAIN AND SUFFERING MUST BE PRIORITY

WHEN the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear the U.S. Department of Justice
appeal regarding the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative, the people who
run the cooperative were disappointed. They would have preferred that the
court had declined to hear the appeal, letting stand a lower court's ruling
allowing the club to distribute medicinal marijuana.

We regret the delay for the very sick people who get relief from their
symptoms from using medicinal marijuana. But we believe it is a good idea
for the highest court in the nation to weigh in on the issue. We hope the
justices recognize the medical benefits of the substance and reject the
anti-drug hysteria that has clouded the issue.

The case dates from 1996 when Californians passed Proposition 215, which
allowed seriously ill patients to obtain marijuana for medical purposes.
Seven other states have passed similar laws.

Cancer and AIDS patients have used marijuana to counter nausea and boost
their appetites. Patients suffering from a range of illnesses, including
arthritis, migraines and glaucoma, find it reduces their symptoms. People
with chronic pain also have found relief from using marijuana.

The Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative was established to distribute
medicinal marijuana and ensure it was not abused.

A U.S. District Court judge issued a temporary injunction that closed the
cooperative in 1998, saying federal law banning marijuana distribution
supersedes state law. However, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal ordered
the judge to reconsider the law considering the medical benefits. After a
hearing, the district court judge found the government's case had not
addressed the medical benefit issue and he withdrew the injunction.

Although California Attorney General Bill Lockyer asked U.S. Attorney
General Janet Reno not to appeal the ruling, the Justice Department took it
to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court ordered the cooperative to stop
dispensing the substance until it decided whether to hear the case. Last
week it decided to take the case and decide whether the cooperative can use
medical necessity as a defense against the federal ban on marijuana
distribution. The injunction against distribution will remain, pending the
court's decision.

It seems unnecessarily unfeeling to prevent patients from getting the
substance while the justices take a look at the issue. We would have
preferred they let stand the lower court's decision to lift the injunction
while they decided the law. For some terminal patients, the injunction
means they will live their last months with a level of pain and discomfort
that could have been lessened.

While many of the high court's justices have a distinctly conservative
bent, their perspective also includes a deference for state's rights. We
hope they acknowledge the rights of Californians to have passed this
compassionate law. We are encouraged that legal experts note that in past
deliberations of assisted suicide cases, some of the justices have hinted
that the denial of relief of great pain could be a violation of a person's
constitutional rights.

We hope the nine justices are able to see the medicinal marijuana issue for
what it is and is not. It is not about stoned hippies in the 1960s passing
around joints at a party. It is about providing relief of pain and
debilitating symptoms to seriously ill patients.