MARIJUANA AS MEDICINE REJECTED BY HIGH COURT

Ruling Could Shut California Distributors

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the federal government can
shut down California marijuana cooperatives that distribute the drug to
people who say they need it to combat the symptoms of AIDS, cancer,
multiple sclerosis and other diseases. There is no "medical necessity"
exception to the federal prohibition on the possession and distribution of
marijuana, the court said in an 8-0 opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas.

The decision is a major setback to the medical marijuana movement. In 1996,
California voters approved a referendum which gave rise to medical
marijuana cooperatives in that state, and since then voters in eight other
states have passed similar measures.

Medical marijuana advocates maintain that a decision against the Oakland,
California, marijuana cooperatives would deter other states from taking
similar action. Voters in Arizona, Alaska, Colorado, Maine, Nevada, Oregon
and Washington also have approved ballot initiatives allowing the use of
medical marijuana. In Hawaii, the legislature passed a similar law and the
governor signed it last year.

The case began in 1998 when the federal government sought an injunction
against the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative and five other marijuana
distributors. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower-court
ruling that had sided with the government. In doing so, the 9th Circuit
created the "medical necessity" defense. However, the court held Monday
that federal anti-drug laws trump state provisions and that they "leave no
doubt" that medical necessity cannot be a defense to a charge of
distribution of marijuana. "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," Justice Thomas wrote. Advocates of medical
marijuana say the drug can ease side effects from chemotherapy, save
nauseated AIDS patients from wasting away or even allow multiple sclerosis
sufferers to rise from a wheelchair and walk.

In a concurring opinion Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justices David
Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, expressed concern that Justice Thomas's
opinion may have been too sweeping, since there might be circumstances
where an individual patient might need to use a prohibited drug to save his
life. Justice Stevens wrote: "Most notably, whether the defense might be
available to a seriously ill patient for whom there is no other means of
avoiding starvation or extraordinary suffering is a difficult issue that is
not presented here."

Court to Act on Search Seizures

The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide if the police may prosecute new
crimes with evidence seized from homes of criminals who consented to
blanket searches as a condition of probation, The Associated Press reported
from Washington.

The Justice Department and California's attorney general both asked the
justices to reconsider lower court rulings that threw out bombmaking
supplies and other evidence seized during the search of a home of a man on
probation for an unrelated drug crime. At issue is the rationale for
searches of probationers' homes, and whether a probationer waives
constitutional protections by giving advance consent to a search.

The case concerns a northern California man suspected of a series of
vandalism attacks on Pacific Gas Electric transformers and other property.
Mark James Knights had a long history with the utility, which had accused
him of stealing electric service and running out on his bill. As a
condition of probation for a drug conviction in 1998, Mr. Knights agreed to
let police or probation officers search him and his property at will.

Mr. Knights contended that the police used his probationer status as a
pretext to follow a hunch that he and a friend were behind an explosion and
fire that damaged a PG&E transformer. Mr. Knights argued that the search of
his apartment was intended only to investigate the fire, and not to check
up on his rehabilitation for the drug conviction, he argued.The police
watched the pair for two days after the fire, and then went into Mr.
Knights's apartment without a warrant. There, they said they found
bombmaking equipment and a brass padlock stamped "PG&E" and drug
paraphernalia. Mr. Knights was arrested and charged with arson conspiracy
and other crimes.

A federal judge ruled that evidence seized could not be used at trial, and
the San Francisco-based 9th U.S.Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.

Mr. Knights did consent to searches when he agreed to terms of his
probation, the appeals court found. "But we have made it clear that this
consent must be seen as limited to probation searches, and must stop short
of investigation searches," the court found.