COURT RULES AGAINST MEDICAL MARIJUANA

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal law bars the
distribution of marijuana even to people who say they must have it to
alleviate symptoms of serious illness, dealing a setback to the movement
for "medical marijuana" laws and limiting the impact of the state laws
already on the books.

Ruling 8-0 in a case involving a California "cannabis cooperative" that
supplied the drug to patients suffering from cancer, AIDs and other
illnesses, the court said that federal anti-drug law allows no "medical
necessity" exception to the general prohibition on selling or growing
marijuana.

Federal law "reflects a determination that marijuana has no medical
benefits worthy of an exception," the court said in an opinion written by
Justice Clarence Thomas. The court upheld federal authorities' ability to
obtain a court order shutting down the cooperative. Justice Stephen Breyer
recused himself because his brother was involved in the case.

The ruling does not directly invalidate "medical marijuana" laws in nine
states, mostly in the West. Those states remain free to choose not to
prosecute people who use marijuana for medical purposes, and the federal
government rarely prosecutes individuals for marijuana use.

However, in those states, the ruling is likely to doom large, public
distribution centers -- confining the use of "medical marijuana" to
private, small-scale settings outside the usual scope of federal
enforcement efforts.

In addition, the court may have deterred additional states from joining the
"medical marijuana" movement, which appeared to be gaining popular
acceptance in recent years.

Irvin Rosenfeld, the Boca Raton stockbroker who's one of nine people
nationwide that the federal government allows to smoke marijuana, had
submitted a brief in the case and flown to Washington to hear arguments.
Rosenfeld, who uses the drug to treat his tumor-wracked body, said Monday's
ruling was so narrow that while it wasn't a step forward he didn't consider
it a setback, either.

But, he said, "I was disappointed because in the case two of the judges
referred to marijuana as medicine. I was hoping they would at least say to
the federal government, `Maybe you need to address the medical use of
marijuana.' They didn't."

"I didn't think they would overturn everything, like Roe v. Wade," the
ruling that allowed abortion rights, Rosenfeld said, "But I felt they would
give us a bone."

Rosenfeld said the ruling is not a dead-end to efforts such as his and
added he believes other cases will bring the issue back to the high court.
But, he added, "I just hope I'm not involved in them as a defendant."
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said the ruling was "unfortunate"
and that "the responsibility for determining what is necessary to provide
for public health and safety has traditionally been left to the states."

Chuck Thomas, communications director of the Marijuana Policy Project,
which lobbies for medical marijuana laws, said, "My two biggest fears are
that it will be somewhat more inconvenient for medical marijuana users . .
. and that next year state legislators will say `Oh, no, now we can't pass
a new state law.' "

Opponents of medical marijuana say that there are abundant legal
alternatives, including a synthetic form of the active ingredient in
marijuana, and that the medical marijuana movement's real goal is de facto
legalized marijuana for recreational use.