TOP COURT ACCEPTS MARIJUANA MEDICAL NECESSITY CASE

WASHINGTON -- The supreme Court agreed yesterday to decide whether "medical
necessity" can Justify distributing marijuana, in violation of federal law,
to people who use it to relieve pain or medical symptoms that cannot be
effectively treated by conventional means.

The case is an appeal by the Clinton administration of a federal court
ruling in California that adopted the medical necessity defense. At issue
are dozens of marijuana cooperatives formed over the last few years as
voters in several states have passed initiatives to authorize using
marijuana for medical purposes.

The medical necessity defense "runs counter to the absolute ban" on
distributing marijuana and is "directly at odds" with federal law, the
administration told the court in an appeal from a ruling by the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals.

The case is not a criminal prosecution. It arose out of the government's
request three years ago for a federal court injunction to stop the
operations of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, started by the city
of Oakland to administer a medical marijuana program under California's
proposition 215.

Known as the compassionate Use Act of 1996, the measure made it legal in
California for seriously ill patients, with a doctor's recommendation, to
possess and use marijuana for the relief of pain and other symptoms.

California is one of nine states where voters have adopted similar
policies. Six others -- Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, and
Nevada, where voters approved a constitutional amendment earlier this month
are in the 9th Circuit.

The other two states are Maine and Colorado, where an initiative received
voter approval this month. Tens of thousands of people are thought to be
members of marijuana cooperatives similar to the Oakland organization.

In addition, the Supreme Court said it will hear the appeal of a mentally
deficient Texas inmate to clarify how much opportunity jurors in death
penalty cases should have to consider a defendant's intelligence.

It will be the second time the court hears an appeal of the sentencing for
rapist and murderer Johnny Paul Penry, whose lawyers say has the mind of a
2-year-old and cannot understand the gravity of his crimes, or the penalty
for them.

On Nov. 16, the Supreme Court blocked Penry's execution hours before he was
to be put to death. The execution remains on hold, until the justices issue
a ruling, expected by July.

Additionally the court:

Heard arguments on how to judge when race plays too large a role in drawing
election districts. The North Carolina case is a follow-up to the justices'
landmark 1993 ruling that election districts drawn to help minorities might
violate white voters' rights. The justices are expected to issue a decision
by July that could affect the racial makeup of voting districts nationwide.

Turned down a challenge by South Carolina gambling operations against the
state's new ban on possession of video gambling machines. The gambling
operators said the ban amounted to the government's unlawful taking of
their property without payment.