MEDICAL MARIJUANA CLUBS LOSE IN COURT

Justices Say U.S. Drug Law Rules Out Exceptions

WASHINGTON -- In a setback for proponents of medical marijuana, the Supreme
Court ruled Monday that federal law prohibits clubs that secure and
distribute the drug to gravely ill patients on a doctor's advice, even if
the practice is allowed by individual states.

Though the 8-0 ruling disappointed supporters of so-called cannabis clubs,
the decision was not the last word on the issue.

The ruling does not automatically spike ballot initiatives passed by voters
in California and seven other states allowing individuals to possess and
cultivate marijuana for medical purposes on a physician's recommendation.

The case also did not address the controversy over whether marijuana helps
ease pain, nausea and other serious symptoms caused by terminal illness,
chemotherapy and medical conditions such as multiple sclerosis, or whether
it should be made available as a medication for patients who need it.

Instead, the case centered on the drug's distribution to cannabis club
members in California, where a federal court had recognized club members'
"medical needs" to have and use marijuana on a doctor's advice.

In the opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court held that the
1970 Controlled Substances Act does not recognize a medical necessity
exception that would make such clubs legal under federal law.

The 1970 law prohibits marijuana distribution except as "part of a strictly
controlled research project that has been registered with the Drug
Enforcement Administration," Thomas wrote.

Courts "cannot override Congress' policy choice, articulated in a statute,
as to what behavior should be prohibited," Thomas said.

Jeff Jones, executive director of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative,
one of the plaintiffs in the case, called the decision "heavy-handed and
misguided." He said the justices ignored evidence of what Jones called the
medicinal power of marijuana to alleviate nausea and pain.

"Common sense tells us this is a therapeutic substance," he said.

The decision will force patients with cancer, AIDS and other ailments to
seek out illegal drug dealers to get their medicine, he said.

Founded in 1996, the Oakland cooperative has provided marijuana for medical
use to 2,200 patients with doctors' prescriptions for the drug.

In October 1998, the cooperative shut down marijuana distribution while its
legal case was pending.

"We're not giving up," Jones said. He said his group would continue to
litigate the matter in federal district court. He noted that the Supreme
Court did not rule on the constitutional issue of the right to use
marijuana for medical purposes.

Kevin Zeese, president of Common Sense for Drug Policy, an advocacy group
for drug law changes, predicted, "The court's decision will heighten the
conflict around medical marijuana."

Tough to enforce

"Caregivers for the seriously ill will continue to provide medical
marijuana," Zeese added, "thus the federal government will have to enforce
the law before juries where over 70 percent of the population voted for
medical marijuana."

Congress placed marijuana on its most restricted list of controlled
substances because of the drug's high potential for abuse, its lack of
"currently accepted medical use in treatment" and "accepted safety for use"
under medical supervision.

But in 1999 the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine said in
a report that marijuana can be effective in treating pain for some
terminally ill patients.

The report, commissioned by the federal government, also said legalizing
marijuana for medical use would not lead to widespread abuse.

In a separate opinion Monday, Justice John Paul Stevens and two other
justices emphasized that the ruling against cannabis clubs did not
eliminate the necessity defense for those who are seriously ill.

"Most notably," wrote Stevens, "whether the defense might be available to a
seriously ill patient for whom there is no alternative means of avoiding
starvation or extraordinary suffering is a difficult issue that is not
presented here."

Joined by Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stevens said that
Thomas' "overbroad language" also failed to give states their due.

Since 1996, voters in several states have approved ballot initiatives
similar to California's, including Arizona, Washington, Oregon, Alaska,
Maine, Colorado and Nevada. Hawaii's legislature last year approved a
similar measure and the governor signed it into law.

Justice Stephen Breyer did not participate in the consideration or decision
of the case as his brother, a federal district court judge in San
Francisco, was involved in the original litigation.

In 1998 the Justice Department won an injunction from Judge Charles Breyer
against six marijuana distributors, popularly known as cannabis clubs. They
were specifically enjoined from engaging in the manufacture, distribution
or possession of marijuana.

These clubs or cooperatives were formed in response to California's
Compassionate Use Act of 1996, which allowed possession and cultivation of
marijuana for medical purposes on a physician's recommendation.

The clubs had asked the district court to allow them to distribute to
people with a physician's certificate claiming marijuana was "a medical
necessity" to treat or alleviate a serious medical condition.

Judge Charles Breyer ruled against them, but the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of
Appeals reversed, citing "a strong public interest in the availability of a
doctor-prescribed treatment that would ameliorate the condition and relieve
the pain and suffering of a large group of persons with serious or fatal
illnesses."

"Indeed," the appeals court said, "the city of Oakland has declared a state
of emergency" in response to the district court's action.

Injunction modified

Breyer then modified his original injunction to allow access to marijuana
for persons with serious medical conditions who otherwise would suffer
imminent harm.

California Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer called it "unfortunate that the [U.S.
Supreme] 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.