COURT REJECTS MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled 8-0 on Monday that there is no
exception in federal law for people to use marijuana to ease their
pain from cancer, AIDS or other illnesses.

Patients could still use marijuana for medical reasons in states that
allow it, legal experts said. But it would be more difficult to
obtain the drug because the Supreme Court said distribution violates
federal law, they said.

Angel McClary, 35, of Oakland, said she will not stop using the drug
to help her cope with an inoperable brain tumor and a seizure
disorder.

"I am not going to let my children watch me die. If that is wrong so
be it," she told a news conference.

Writing for the court, Justice Clarence Thomas said a 1970 federal
law "reflects a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits
worthy of an exception." The only exemption is for government-funded
research projects that involve some 200 people.

Thomas said the controlled substances statute "includes no exception
at all for any medical use of marijuana" except for the research,
even though the law does so for other drugs. The court was "unwilling
to view this omission as an accident," Thomas wrote.

Justice John Paul Stevens, though joining in the overall ruling, said
in a concurring opinion with two colleagues that the decision went
too far.

It should have left open the possibility that an individual could
raise a medical necessity defense, especially a patient "for whom
there is no alternative means of avoiding starvation or extraordinary
suffering," Stevens said.

He also said the ruling could lead to friction between the federal
government and states that have passed medical marijuana laws.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer did not participate because his brother, a
federal district judge, presided over the case.

Appeals Ruling Reversed

The decision reversed a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that
medical necessity can be a legal defense in marijuana cases.

The federal government triggered the case in 1998, seeking an
injunction against the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative and five
other marijuana distributors.

Gerald Uelmen, a Santa Clara University law professor who represented
the cooperative, said, "The effect only reaches manufacturers and
distributors. But it does put at risk patients who grow their own
because that is manufacture under federal law."

In California, however, individuals can legally grow marijuana for
their own medical use. "That's the alternative source to the black
market," said Bill Zimmerman of Americans for Medical Rights, a Santa
Monica group that sponsored state initiatives to permit medical
marijuana use.

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer called it "unfortunate that
the court was unable to respect California's historic role as a ...
leader in the effort to help sick and dying residents who have no
hope for relief other than through medical marijuana." He said the
opinion would be reviewed for its effect on California law.

Uelmen commented, "I cannot imagine federal resources being poured
into going out and arresting the sick people who are growing
marijuana for medicinal use. I suspect federal resources will be used
to seek injunctions to close down major distribution centers."

Legal In Other States

Voters in Arizona, Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Nevada,
Oregon and Washington also have approved ballot initiatives allowing
the use of medical marijuana. In Hawaii, the Legislature passed a
similar law and the governor signed it last year.

"We just heard of the ruling and our lawyers will have to review it
and determine how that affects the Colorado law," said Cindy
Parmenter, spokeswoman for the Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment.

While several clubs closed down, the Oakland cooperative turned to
registering potential marijuana recipients while it awaited a final
ruling.