COURT SET TO DECIDE ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will decide the
fate of the medical marijuana laws in California, Oregon and seven other
states.

The case, to be heard early next year, sets up a clash between the strict
federal laws against distributing marijuana and California's limited move
to legalize its use for those who are seriously ill.

In August, the high court tipped its hand by issuing an emergency order
that halted the legal distribution of marijuana by a cannabis club in
Oakland, Calif.

Usually, the justices intervene in a pending dispute only when they are
convinced that the lower court is wrong. In this case, the federal appeals
court based in San Francisco had said it should be legal to give marijuana
to patients whose medical need is apparent.

The justices will decide formally whether there is a "medical necessity"
exemption to the zero-tolerance federal drug policy.

Four years ago, California voters approved Proposition 215, a measure that
authorized patients or their caregivers to obtain marijuana if they had a
doctor's recommendation.

Advocates of the Compassionate Use Act - who say marijuana is effective in
relieving pain and nausea in some patients who suffer from cancer or AIDS -
continued Monday to express optimism, despite the latest in a series of
court actions against them.

"We would argue that medical necessity, an ancient defense that goes back
centuries in Anglo jurisprudence, continues to exist," said Robert Raich,
attorney for the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative. "Patients have no
other effective therapy ... and they have (the) right to access to that
medicine."

Raich said that however the Supreme Court rules, the validity of patients'
rights under Proposition 215 will not be affected. The high court indicated
that it will be ruling only on whether medical necessity is a valid defense
to distribution of marijuana under federal laws, he said.

Additionally, Raich said, the club's legal team will argue that - to be
consistent with its previous positions on states' rights - the high court
should respect the decision of California voters in approving the
Compassionate Use Act.

Federal officials, however, have ignored such arguments and called for the
narrowest reading of federal drug laws.

They insist that the state had no power to waive federal narcotics laws,
which make it a crime to manufacture and distribute marijuana. Their suit
further states that marijuana has "no currently accepted medical use."

Despite this stark dispute, the U.S. Justice Department did not choose to
challenge violations of the law simply by prosecuting individual users.
Instead, federal lawyers sued six Northern California cannabis clubs and
sought court orders making their operations illegal.

In August, on an 8-1 vote, the Supreme Court justices issued an order that
prohibited the legal distribution of marijuana at the Oakland club.

Only Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, saying that the "orderly
enforcement of federal criminal statutes" was not threatened by the medical
use of marijuana.

U.S. Solicitor General Seth Waxman petitioned the court and asked for a
ruling that distributing marijuana legally, even on limited basis, will
"promote disrespect and disregard" for the drug laws.

The court granted his appeal Monday in the case of the United States vs.
Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 00-151. If the justices rule for the
government, their decision would mean the distribution of marijuana is
illegal, regardless of the circumstances.

Such a ruling would not necessarily mean the government would prosecute
individuals who possessed marijuana for personal medical use.

But it would limit the means of distributing the drug to those who need it.

Besides California and Oregon, seven states have adopted medical marijuana
laws: Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Maine, Colorado, Nevada and Washington.