LOCAL POT ADVOCATES PIN HOPES ON LEGISLATION

Advocates for medical marijuana are setting their sights on legislation a
day after being dealt a blow by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The majority opinion, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, denied any
medical exception to the Controlled Substances Act, which prohibits the
manufacture and distribution of marijuana.

"It is unfortunate that the court was unable to respect California's
historic role 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," California Attorney General Bill Lockyer
said in a terse, prepared response.

"The court's opinion and the concurring opinion will require further review
before any conclusions are reached or recommendations are made about
California law," he added.

Supervisor Hal Brown said the ruling shows how estranged the state and
federal governments have become.

"It's outrageous to say there's no medical use for marijuana," Brown said,
adding the state has little recourse but to comply - or seek legislative
redress.

"There is no Supreme Supreme Court," he said. "An act of Congress or other
legislative remedy may be helpful."

Lynnette Shaw, owner of the Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana, also
called on lawmakers to approve medical marijuana.

"We need to get marijuana-friendly legislators to act," she said.
"Thirty-six states now have marijuana-friendly laws. It's time to change
the policy makers. The court is picking on the most vulnerable people in
our society."

The ruling arose from a case involving the Oakland Cannabis Buyers
Cooperative. The club appealed a district court ruling prohibiting its
activities.

Marin County Assistant District Attorney Ed Berberian said the ruling only
makes clear that federal officials may shut down distribution centers.

"We will still attempt to apply Proposition 215, as we always have - which
the law requires us to do," Berberian said. But "they have to make some
decisions on how this ruling is to be applied."

Matt Jacobs, spokesman for the regional office of the U.S. Attorney,
referred all calls to the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. Calls
to that office were not returned.

The medical community reacted swiftly to the ruling.

"They're wrong," said San Francisco oncologist Ivan Silverberg, who wrote
ballot arguments in favor of Proposition 215 in 1996. State voters passed
the proposition to legalize medical marijuana use. "This flies in the face
of legal rulings going back to the 1980s. It probably has to do with
pharmaceutical companies that manufacture drugs to control nausea and
vomiting."

Doctors and medical marijuana proponents say cannabis relieves the nausea
and vomiting that accompany chemotherapy, alleviates the internal eye
pressure associated with glaucoma and slows the onset of blindness, and
lessens the muscle spasticity and chronic pain of multiple sclerosis,
epilepsy and spinal cord injuries.

Silverberg noted that Marinol, a commercial drug that can be prescribed, is
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the major psychoactive chemical compound of
marijuana, in capsule form.

"I deal with cancer patients who are suffering terribly," Silverberg said.
"If they can take a capsule and keep it down, fine. For others, if I can
get them to keep down a meal, it is a miracle. For them, an alternate such
as an inhaled route is such a blessing."

Clay Shinn, 45, of San Rafael, takes eight protease inhibitors twice a day,
along with a "cocktail" of six drugs to treat the AIDS that resulted from a
tainted blood transfusion in the mid-1980s.

"The medication I take makes me violently ill," he said. "Marijuana
completely relieves your nausea before you can exhale."

Venetta Babich, 75, another Fairfax client, had already lost one eye to
glaucoma when she discovered medical marijuana "three or four years ago."

It was a tough sell: "I thought, 'Oh, well.' I'd always been dead set
against marijuana. But you do what you can to save your eyes." In about two
weeks, the Marinwood resident reduced the pressure in her remaining eye by
50 percent, she said.

"We're not people who crawled out from under wood to do this," she said.
"We are law-abiding citizens who just want to live productive lives."

Shaw said she fully expects the federal government will seek the closure of
her and other buyers' clubs.

But consumers say they will not sacrifice the relief they've found -
regardless the cost or risk.

"I would have to go back to the streets," said Richmond landscaper Tina
Campbell.

"I found out my first time here that I had been paying $20 to get $10 worth
(of cannabis)," to relieve the lower back pain and muscle spasms that kept
her from working. "Out on the street, if you get burned, you can't exactly
go back. But I was miserable. Pain pills weren't helping and plus, they're
addictive."

With one in five Americans likely to develop cancer, and another 20 million
to develop glaucoma, legislation legalizing cannabis use as a medical
treatment may not be out of bounds, advocates suggest.

"Now, I can give people a shot at a cost of about $140," Silverberg said.
"Then you add in the cost of an office visit and you're talking about a
$200 visit to a physician. I don't know, but I suspect that amount of money
would buy you a lot of marijuana."