COURT BARS MEDICAL MARIJUANA

Phil Georgi smokes marijuana at least four times a day.

Without it, the 40-year-old says, he wouldn't be able to eat much or
sleep well.

Georgi started using marijuana as medicine in August, after being
diagnosed with the final stages of AIDS. The disease robbed him of
his career as a support technician for an Internet service provider.

He was stunned by Monday's U.S. Supreme Court ruling, which declared
illegal the distribution of marijuana for medicinal uses.

"I am deeply saddened," said Georgi, a board member for the
Compassionate Cannabis Center in Santa Barbara, a group that
distributes marijuana to more than 150 ill people.

"This is devastating to patients. It's disheartening," he said. "The
worst-case scenario is that patients will have to go back to
black-market dealings that are unsafe, and they will have to pay
more."

The Supreme Court's 8-0 ruling in U.S. vs. Oakland Cannabis Buyers'
Cooperative, No. 00-151, means federal authorities can shut down the
Oakland cooperative as well as 20 other centers around California
that have been distributing marijuana. The centers have been in
operation since California became the first state in the nation to
legalize the medicinal use of marijuana when voters passed
Proposition 215 in 1996.

Marijuana is recommended by some doctors to relieve the often
debilitating symptoms of AIDS, epilepsy, glaucoma and multiple
sclerosis, as well as the side effects from the treatment of cancer.

Although the court did not rule directly on Proposition 215, it cast
doubt on whether the statute, as well as similar laws in eight other
states, can co-exist with the federal prohibition.

The decision could influence the state Supreme Court, which is
considering whether Proposition 215 protects patients who use
marijuana from criminal prosecution.

In balancing patients' medical needs vs. the nation's war on drugs,
the court said Congress classified marijuana strictly as an illegal
substance when it passed the federal Controlled Substances Act in
1970.

"Congress has made a determination that marijuana has no medical
benefits worthy of an exception,'' Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in
the majority opinion. "We hold that medical necessity is not a
defense to manufacturing and distributing marijuana."

Joining Thomas were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices
Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor and Antonin Scalia.

In a strongly worded concurring opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens
agreed that the Oakland distributor cannot rely on a "medical
necessity'' defense to escape prosecution under the federal law. But
he said the majority went too far in suggesting the same reasoning
applied to patients.

In a tack usually adopted by the conservative justices, Stevens said
the federal government should respect states' rights.

"By passing Proposition 215, California voters have decided that
seriously ill patients and their primary caregivers should be exempt
from prosecution under state laws,'' wrote Stevens, who battled
cancer years ago.

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

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter joined in the decision.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer did not take part because his brother, U.S.
District Judge Charles Breyer, handled the case on the trial court
level.

Local advocates of medicinal marijuana say they still hope Santa
Barbara officials will take steps to carry out Proposition 215.
Proponents are pushing for a local ordinance that would implement the
initiative.

"There's a lot of people in a horrendous amount of pain that don't
need to be," said Mark Kascle, a medicinal marijuana user and board
president for the Compassionate Cannabis Center. "We're fathers,
mothers, sons and daughters .=CA.=CA. and we're just asking for a
little compassion."

The group distributes marijuana to ill people who have a doctor's
recommendation. One patient, Kascle said, is 91 years old and has
severe arthritis and heart problems. The center currently does not
have a physical address; patients call a telephone number to make
arrangements to purchase the drug.

Kascle is not sure how the ruling will affect the center's operations.

"According to the state, what we do is legal," Kascle said. "We don't
want to break any laws."

Local law enforcement said Monday that anyone caught using marijuana
will be arrested.

"The way I understand the Supreme Court's decision is that it
continues to prohibit the sales, distribution and possession of
marijuana," said police Lt. Nick Katzenstein, a department spokesman.
"Law enforcement everywhere has the obligation to enforce the law. We
have been doing that for many years and today's decision will not
change anything."

District Attorney Thomas W. Sneddon agreed.

"The way I read the opinion is that cannabis clubs are illegal,"
Sneddon said. "Prop. 215 is history. I don't think there's any wiggle
room."

Longtime Santa Barbara activist and mayoral candidate Bruce
Rittenhouse characterized the Supreme Court decision as "very narrow."

He said the ruling only prevents the distribution of marijuana for
medicinal purposes, but city leaders still have the power to adopt a
medicinal marijuana ordinance.

"It's all about having the political courage to stand up and do what
is right," Rittenhouse said.

Rittenhouse said Proposition 215 is state law and allows individuals
with a doctor's recommendation to cultivate, possess and use
marijuana for medical purposes. There's nothing stopping the city
from adopting an ordinance implementing Proposition 215, he said.

City Attorney Dan Wallace said the Supreme Court's ruling confirmed
his previous understanding of the law.

"It appears that medicinal marijuana clubs will have to cease
operations," Wallace said.

City staff will now prepare a report and make a recommendation on
whether to adopt a medicinal marijuana ordinance, Wallace said.

The city had been waiting for Monday's Supreme Court decision before
moving forward with discussion on any local ordinance.

State Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who supported the Oakland
cooperative's medical necessity defense, said the states, and not the
federal government, traditionally have determined what is necessary
for public health and safety.

"It is unfortunate that the court was unable to respect California's
historic rule as a "'laboratory' for good public policy and a leader
in the effort to help sick and dying residents who have no hope for
relief other than through medical marijuana,'' Lockyer said.

The case arose after the Clinton administration filed suit in 1998
seeking to close the buyers clubs that cropped after medicinal
marijuana laws were passed in California and the other states --
Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and
Washington.

This story includes reports from the San Francisco Chronicle.