RULING DIMS MEDICAL-POT PROSPECTS

The U.S. Supreme Court's 8-0 ruling to strike down a California
medical-marijuana program Monday was "like a punch in the mouth" for a New
Mexico quadriplegic who smokes marijuana to control his severe spasms.

"I'm already writing letters to each member of the Supreme Court," said
James Patterson of Albuquerque, who testified at several state legislative
committees this year in favor of bills that would have allowed sufferers of
serious medical conditions to treat their symptoms with marijuana.

But Paterson - who indicated that one puff of marijuana eases his painful
leg spasms for up to two days - said the court ruling will not stop him
from using the drug when he has to.

"I just don't like doing it illegally," he said.

Many sufferers of AIDS, cancer, multiple sclerosis and other illnesses say
marijuana has helped enormously in combating symptoms of their diseases or
side effects from treatments such as chemotherapy.

Meanwhile, some New Mexico officials who backed the medical-marijuana
proposal said the high court's decision does not end the fight.

However, one medical-marijuana backer, state Sen. Steve Komadina,
R-Corrales, said the court's decision "probably puts a big stopper" in any
chance of passing such a bill in the immediate future.

Both houses of the state Legislature passed medical-marijuana bills during
the legislative session. However, neither bill was approved by both houses,
so neither went to the governor for his signature.

During debates on the issue, some state legislators said it would be wise
to see how the court ruled on the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative case,
the case decided Monday.

The court's ruling does not nullify medical marijuana laws now on the books
in nine states, legal experts say, and states remain free to choose not to
prosecute people who use marijuana for medical purposes. The federal
government reportedly prosecutes individuals only rarely for marijuana use.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a federal law classifying marijuana as
illegal has no exception for ill patients.

"In the case of the Controlled Substances Act, the statute reflects a
determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception
(outside the confines of a government-approved research project)," Justice
Clarence Thomas wrote.

Thomas noted the act states marijuana has "no currently accepted medical use."

The federal government triggered the case in 1998, seeking an injunction
against the Oakland center and five other marijuana distributors who
supplied marijuana for patients with doctors' prescriptions.

The cooperative argued that a drug may not yet have achieved general
acceptance as a medical treatment, but may still have medical benefits for
some patients.

But Thomas wrote, "It is clear from the text of the act that Congress has
made a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an
exception."

That act, passed in 1970, classifies marijuana as a "Schedule 1" drug,
along with "harder" drugs such as heroin and cocaine.

Thomas was joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra
Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justices
David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Justice Stephen Breyer did not participate in the marijuana decision
because his brother, a federal judge, initially presided over the case.

Stevens' opinion emphasized the court's ruling only applied to the
"cannabis clubs," such as the Oakland center, which distribute marijuana to
their members.

The ruling, Stevens wrote, did not address whether "a seriously ill patient
for whom there is no alternative means of avoiding starvation or
extraordinary suffering" could use the "medical necessity" defense if
prosecuted for violating drug laws.

"This case does not call upon the court to deprive all such patients of the
benefit of the necessity defense to federal prosecution."

Stevens' opinion offers a ray of hope to New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, a
spokeswoman said.

Diane Kinderwater, who indicated she consulted with the governor's legal
advisers Monday, said the court ruling only affects certain aspects of the
California law and does not address a state's right to pass
medical-marijuana laws.

"The governor's position is that laws need to be changed to accommodate the
will of the people," Kinderwater said. "He'll continue to work hard for
these efforts."

A statewide poll in February showed 80 percent support for the idea of
allowing sick people to use marijuana for certain medical conditions.

Legalizing marijuana for sufferers of serious medical conditions was part
of Johnson's drug-reform package this year.

Rep. Joe Thompson, R-Albuquerque, who sponsored the House medical-marijuana
bill, said Monday, "I'm not ready to throw in the towel."

Thompson said, however, the next thrust might be changing the law at the
federal level.

Komadina, who is a physician, noted that the law proposed for New Mexico
was different in several respects from the California law struck down by
the court.

The New Mexico proposal called for the state Health Department to
administer a program to supply marijuana to patients whose physicians
recommend such treatment. The state Medical Society endorsed the bill,
Komadina noted.

Health Secretary Alex Valdez noted that the federal law allows exceptions
for government-approved research projects - so perhaps a future bill could
be structured to make a medical marijuana program part of such a program.

Katharine Huffman, director of the New Mexico Drug Policy Project of the
Lindesmith Center Drug Policy Foundation, said the court's ruling did
mostly "symbolic" harm to the medical marijuana cause.

The ruling does not preclude the state decriminalizing the use of marijuana
for certain patients, as several states have done, Huffman said.