U.S. HIGH COURT RULES AGAINST MEDICAL POT USE

WASHINGTON (AP) Deciding in a California case, the Supreme Court ruled 8-0
on Monday that there is no exception in federal law for the medical use of
marijuana by people who need it to ease their pain from cancer, AIDS or
other illnesses.

Interpretations of the court's decision varied Monday, but some legal
experts said patients still could use marijuana for medical reasons in
California and other states that specifically allow it. However, they said
it would become more difficult to obtain the drug because the Supreme Court
said distribution and manufacture violates federal law.

Voters in California, Arizona, Alaska, Colorado, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and
Washington have approved ballot initiatives allowing the use of medical
marijuana.

California also has allowed individuals to legally grow marijuana for their
own medical use.

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 m0anufacturers and
distributors. But it does put at risk patients who grow their own because
that is manufacture under federal law."

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer 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.

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.

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 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, Stevens said.