SUPREME COURT RULES AGAINST COMPASSION

IN 1996, 5.4 million Californians voted to allow the medical use of
marijuana by patients suffering from cancer, AIDS and other serious
illnesses. A showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court was inevitable because
California's compassion conflicted with federal drug laws.

The high court could and should have struck a balance. Instead, Monday
the justices sided with the feds in a predictable -- and overly broad
- -- decision. The ruling's only surprises were how fast the decision
came down (the case was only heard March 28) and that it was unanimous.

Marijuana is an illegal drug. However, it merits an exemption from the
federal Controlled Substances Act when used to help the seriously ill.
Smoking it alleviates pain and nausea and stimulates appetite in many
patients.

Recognizing that, Californians five years ago passed Proposition 215.
Voters in other states, including our neighbors in Arizona, Nevada and
Oregon, have approved similar measures that permit its use on a
doctor's recommendation.

Proposition 215 was marred from the start, though, because it was
silent on how the sick were supposed to get marijuana. ``Buyers
clubs'' were created to serve that purpose -- and provided easy
targets for the federal government. The feds didn't dare risk hauling
cancer patients off to jail. Few California juries would be so
cold-hearted as to punish the seriously ill for relying on marijuana.

To get around that, the Justice Department asked the federal courts
for an injunction to close Oakland's Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative. But
the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found a ``medical necessity''
exception to the federal drug laws. Patients could have access to
marijuana if they could show that they had serious medical conditions,
would suffer ``imminent harm'' without marijuana and lacked legal
alternatives to alleviate their symptoms.

The Supreme Court would have been wise to make this strict, but fair,
standard the law of the land. It didn't. ``We hold that medical
necessity is not a defense to manufacturing and distributing
marijuana,'' Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court.

Medical marijuana supporters correctly point out that the decision
fails to address directly whether a patient's possession and use of
the drug are illegal, too.

But Thomas closed that window of hope in an important footnote: ``The
very point of our holding is that there is no medical necessity
exception to the prohibitions at issue, even when the patient is
`seriously ill' and lacks alternative avenues for relief.''

These cruel words suggest that the court would frown on other attempts
to get marijuana into the hands of the sick.

Nevertheless, California should continue to experiment with different
ways to implement Proposition 215 and improve the quality of life for
the seriously ill. Monday's decision doesn't relieve state officials
of that responsibility because the proposition still is on the books.
Perhaps the justices will have a harder time knocking down medical
marijuana programs certified or run by the state.

At least that's our hope.