JUSTICES SAY NO TO MEDICAL MARIJUANA

Supreme Court Says Federal Law Prevents Doctors From Providing The
Drug

Already facing a conservative, tough-on-drugs Ohio legislature,
multiple sclerosis patient John Precup fears the U.S. Supreme Court
yesterday gave lawmakers another excuse to just say no to medical marijuana.

In a stinging setback to people such as Precup, the court ruled 8-0
that federal law prohibits physicians from providing marijuana to
seriously ill patients.

"It maybe gives our state legislators a little more reason to say no
when we ask them to sponsor our bill, but it doesn't really change our
efforts," said Precup, a Mansfield resident and president of the Ohio
Patient Network.

The group wants those who suffer from diseases such as AIDS, cancer,
glaucoma and multiple sclerosis to be free from prosecution if they
secure a doctor's prescription for marijuana.

The Supreme Court ruled that even in states that have approved the use
of marijuana for patients suffering from such diseases as cancer and
AIDS, the federal government has the power to prosecute those
distributing the drug.

Conservative organizations hailed the ruling, saying that advocates of
medical marijuana are trying to use a medical pretext to legalize drug
use. But some medical associations and liberal groups warned that the
court was allowing federal law to trample on the wishes of voters in
several states who have supported the use of medical marijuana.

Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas concluded that it is
clear from the text of the federal law that "Congress has made a
determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an
exception." Thomas quoted from the portion of the law that states
marijuana has "no currently accepted medical use."

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia,
Anthony M. Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor joined Thomas in his opinion.

Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg
agreed with the decision. But Stevens warned in a separate opinion
that the ruling was so broadly written that patients who use marijuana
could be prosecuted as well as those who distribute marijuana.

Justice Stephen Breyer did not take part in the decision because his
brother, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer of California, delivered
the original ruling in the case in 1998.

Eight states -- Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada,
Oregon, Washington -- have approved exemptions in their drug laws to
permit the use of marijuana for the seriously ill. But yesterday's
ruling appears to make it unlikely that physicians in any of those
states will be permitted to provide marijuana to their patients.

"Under federal law, anybody who tries to do that will face
prosecution," said Julie Carpenter, a Washington attorney who
represents state officials favoring the use of medical marijuana.

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."

However, the decision is unlikely to quell the fierce debate over
whether medical marijuana has any value. Advocates argue that it can
ease the brutal side effects of cancer patients undergoing
chemotherapy. They contend its use can allow those suffering from
multiple sclerosis to walk.

"We're not saying for everybody to run out and do it . . . but it
works for me," Precup said. "I have tried several different types of
drugs for nausea and none have worked as well as the cannabis."

Conservatives assail such arguments. Robert Maginnis, vice president
of the Family Research Council in Washington, said in a statement,
"Smoking pot is never sound medicine. Medicalization of marijuana
would result in many negative consequences the federal drug laws are
designed to prevent."

Dr. Costantino Benedetti, director of palliative (pain-care) medicine
at the Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital, said science has far to go to
corroborate -- or disprove -- claims that smokable marijuana is the
best medicine for some patients.

"Oftentimes, talking to patients who have cancer with the pain and
nausea and vomiting and anorexia, they tell us that they do smoke
marijuana -- they report some positive side effects," he said.

But barring better evidence of its merit, Benedetti discourages the
use and suggests Marinol, a pill-form of THC, a naturally occurring
component of marijuana.

Patients, including Precup, often report less help from the pill than
from the weed, indicating that there might be other active components
in marijuana that provide relief, Benedetti said.

"There is no question there should be studies, serious studies," he
said, adding that the Supreme Court decision might quell research efforts.

"It could put a damper (on research) here in the United States, but
that doesn't mean it'll put a damper on work in other parts of the
world."

Yesterday's decision ended a lengthy legal and political battle in
California that began in 1996 when voters approved the use of medical
marijuana. In 1998, the Justice Department went to federal court to
prevent six nonprofit medical organizations from distributing
marijuana to seriously ill patients.

Judge Charles Breyer ruled in favor of the Justice Department, but the
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed his decision, concluding
that "medical necessity" allowed marijuana to be distributed. The
Clinton administration then appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court.