ILL GET NO EXCEPTION TO U.S. POT LAWS

They Can Still Use Marijuana In States That Allow It

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 Diction 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.

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.

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

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.