JUSTICES BAR DISTRIBUTION OF POT FOR MEDICINAL USE

Unanimous Ruling Clouds Future Of Cannabis Programs

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday made it impossible to provide medicinal
marijuana to seriously ill patients without running afoul of federal drug
laws, issuing a broad ruling that jeopardizes the future of medicinal pot
programs in California and other states.

In an 8-0 opinion, the justices rejected a federal appeals court's earlier
decision that carved out a "medical necessity" exception to the nation's
drug laws.

Although the legal battle over medicinal marijuana is far from over, the
Supreme Court took a strict view of the 1970 Controlled Substances Act, the
federal law forbidding the possession or sale of marijuana and a host of
other drugs. But three of the justices warned that the ruling went too far
because it would bar seriously ill patients from possessing marijuana and
pose a threat to states that have legalized possession for the sick and dying.

In the short term, the Supreme Court's decision leaves cannabis clubs
across California and in other states vulnerable to immediate closing by
federal law enforcement officials. In the long run, the justices' ruling
suggests that the medicinal marijuana movement must persuade Congress, not
the courts, to create a legal way for patients to obtain pot.

"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 Clarence Thomas wrote for the court.

The ruling did not invalidate California's Proposition 215, the nation's
first voter-approved law permitting the use of medicinal pot, or directly
affect similar laws now on the books in eight other states. But the opinion
leaves states with no apparent option to supply pot legally, raising the
possibility patients will be forced again to buy it on the street.

"The Supreme Court hit them with a bludgeon instead of a scalpel," said
Rory Little, a Hastings College of the Law professor and former Justice
Department appellate lawyer. "They are certainly saying the courts aren't
going to rescue you -- it's up to the executive branch or the legislative
branch to endorse this."

Genesis In Oakland Case

The Supreme Court's decision arises from the U.S. Justice Department's
3-year-old case against the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative and other
similar Northern California operations. The federal government has
attempted to close the clubs, arguing that they violate the law and pose a
broader threat to federal drug enforcement.

As the legal battle has unfolded, however, clubs have continued to operate
in many spots around California, including San Francisco, Marin County,
Ukiah, Berkeley, Santa Cruz and West Hollywood. The question now is whether
federal prosecutors will use the Supreme Court ruling to quickly close
their doors, or simply keep taking a selective approach to enforcement.

Justice Department officials did not return phone calls seeking comment on
Monday's ruling. Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a statement praising
the ruling as "a victory for enforcement of our nation's drug laws."

Jeff Jones, executive director of the Oakland club, vowed Monday to keep
fighting, and said his operation would continue registering patients under
a city-supported program. Oakland's club had ceased providing marijuana
while the court case was pending.

"I feel it's heavy-handed and misguided," Jones said of the ruling. It does
not take into account what these patients are to do, with no alternative
being offered from the federal government as to where their medicine is
coming from."

Scott Imler, director of the West Hollywood cannabis club, and Lynnette
Shaw, who runs a center in Fairfax, said they were hoping to remain open,
but reviewing their legal status.

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who filed a brief in support of
the Oakland club, expressed disappointment in the Supreme Court's ruling,
although he said his office must review it further to determine its scope.
Most other states have been awaiting the Supreme Court's ruling before
deciding how they will go about providing marijuana to patients.

"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," Lockyer said.

Prop. 215 Unclear

The medicinal marijuana issue has been destined for the Supreme Court since
voters approved Proposition 215, which permits the use of pot for the sick
and dying, such as those with life-threatening illnesses including AIDS and
cancer.

The law never made it clear how patients would obtain a drug that is
illegal, producing repeated skirmishes in the courts between law
enforcement officials and doctors, patients and medicinal marijuana advocates.

In 1999, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that "medical
necessity" could trump federal drug laws and allow distribution of pot to
patients facing "imminent harm." But the Supreme Court repudiated that
conclusion.

While legal experts do not expect federal law enforcement officials to seek
out patients who possess marijuana, Justice John Paul Stevens warned that
the majority's ruling goes too far because it leaves patients vulnerable by
taking away a medical-necessity defense for them.

Another Concern

The result, Stevens wrote, was to create an "unfortunate" collision with
states that have chosen to offer legal protection to patients and their
caregivers. Stevens was joined by justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David
Souter. Justice Stephen Breyer did not participate in the case because his
brother, San Francisco federal Judge Charles Breyer, has presided over the
suit against the Oakland club.

The Oakland club's lawyers plan to return to court to raise legal arguments
not addressed in the Supreme Court's ruling, including whether denial of
marijuana to critically ill patients under the Controlled Substances Act is
unconstitutional.

"These issues certainly won't go away," said Santa Clara University law
Professor Gerald Uelmen, who represented the Oakland club in the Supreme Court.