A SETBACK FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA

Legislature Should Not Use Court Ruling As Excuse For Inaction

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to advocates of medical
marijuana -- a movement which has changed the law in Nevada and eight other
states to allow seriously ill patients to use marijuana as treatment for
glaucoma, wasting syndrome from chemotherapy, and other illnesses. By a
vote of 8-0, the court ruled that "medical necessity is not a defense to
manufacturing and distributing marijuana." As a result, the medical
marijuana movement faces an uncertain future.

The case was brought against a marijuana buyers group in Oakland that
formed after California voters approved a medical marijuana initiative in
1996. To become a member -- and receive marijuana from the cooperative -- a
patient had to present a written statement from his physician stating that
marijuana was a "medically necessary" form of treatment and then submit to
a screening interview. In 1998, the federal government sued the
cooperative, claiming that its actions violated the federal Controlled
Substances Act, which prohibits the manufacture and distribution of certain
illegal drugs.

At trial, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled for the government,
noting that Congress classified marijuana as a "schedule I" drug -- the
most restrictive designation listed by the act, set aside for drugs which
have "no currently accepted medical use." The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals reversed that ruling, claiming that "medical necessity" was a
legitimate defense for seriously ill patients.

Writing for the Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas said the language of
the Controlled Substances Act is clear: "Medical necessity" cannot be used
by persons wishing to avoid federal prosecution for the manufacture or
distribution of schedule I drugs. Only if Congress reclassified marijuana
under a less-restrictive designation could medical necessity be a
legitimate defense.

While the ruling is clearly a setback for the medical marijuana movement,
it did not explicitly invalidate the California measure or any other state
laws, including Nevada's. Dan Hart, executive director of Nevadans for
Medical Rights, says the "decision affects a flawed distribution system set
up in California" and should have no impact on the Nevada constitutional
amendment enacted by voters last November authorizing medical marijuana.

Mr. Hart cited a concurring opinion to Monday's decision penned by Justice
John Paul Stevens, which pointed out that the court's ruling prohibited
only "manufacturing and distributing marijuana." It did not prohibit states
from allowing the cultivation and possession of small amounts of marijuana
for medicinal purposes.

And that's the direction medical marijuana groups should take. The American
Medical Marijuana Association claims that "the medical marijuana clubs will
be largely unaffected" by the decision, "because they will simply switch
from distributing medical pot to helping patients grow their own."

Voters in states who are represented by 16 senators and 79 House members
have passed medical marijuana measures, suggesting there should be a
groundswell of support in Congress for reclassifying marijuana under a
less-restrictive standard that would allow its use for medical purposes.
The more immediate concern lies in Carson City, however, where legislators
have refused to allocate any money to pay for the establishment of a
registry of marijuana patients.

Nevada's constitutional amendment says the Legislature "shall provide by
law" measures that, among other things, allow patients to use marijuana for
medicinal purposes, set up a patient registry, and authorize appropriate
methods to supply the plant for patients on the registry.

An overwhelming majority of Nevada voters believe that seriously ill
patients should have the option of using marijuana medicinally. Monday's
Supreme Court decision notwithstanding, it remains the duty of the
Legislature to allow those patients to legally obtain that treatment.