POT LAW CLOUDY

Even 1 Toke Is Over The Line, U.S. Justices Rule In 'Medical
Necessity' Case From California

WASHINGTON -- A U.S. Supreme Court decision has put Colorado's
medical marijuana law into a legal haze two weeks before it is to
take effect.

In an 8-0 decision, the nation's highest court struck down the
"medical necessity" defense that the Oakland Cannabis Buyers'
Cooperative had asserted to justify its distribution network under
California's medical marijuana law.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that for the purposes of federal drug
laws enacted by Congress, "marijuana has no currently accepted
medical use at all."

In separate opinions, even the justices disagreed on how broadly to
interpret their ruling and whether the "medical necessity" defense
still might be considered for individual patients.

But Colorado Attorney General Ken Salazar issued a statement Monday
warning that those who grow, distribute or use marijuana "are in real
peril of federal drug enforcement" regardless of Colorado's medical
marijuana registry, scheduled to debut June 1.

"Legally, the situation is clearer, but goodness, you've got a state
program where the folks who use it are in peril of going to jail,"
Colorado Solicitor General Alan Gilbert said. "That's an unusual
situation, and one that calls for careful thought by the Department
of Public Health and Environment about how to proceed."

Under the initiative Colorado voters approved last year, patients
with written recommendations from doctors can pay a $140 fee and
apply for special ID cards. If approved, they could legally possess
up to two ounces of marijuana or have up to six marijuana plants --
only three flowering.

They would avoid prosecution under state laws, although Gilbert said
they would remain targets for possible federal prosecution under
Monday's ruling.

The attorney general's office was still reviewing the case and
advising the Department of Health and Environment. As of Monday
afternoon, "We're forging ahead" with the June 1 date, said Dr. Carol
Garrett, state registrar of vital records.

At the very least, the ruling will halt plans to open cannabis
buyers' clubs in Colorado, activists on both sides said.

"My phone hasn't stopped ringing from patients calling me. They're
upset, they're frustrated, they're hurt," said Martin Chilcutt,
author of Colorado's medical marijuana Amendment 20. "We were hoping,
based on a 'medical necessity,' they would allow this defense . . .
so everything could come above ground, so we could have an honest,
open, tightly controlled system for patients, and so they wouldn't
have to continue to sneak around underground."

Rob Conaway, a 51-year-old AIDS patient, said he was upset by the
ruling but not discouraged.

He said he has used marijuana for several years to help him regain
weight after dwindling from about 160 pounds to 120.

"Nothing gives us more determination than these kinds of rulings to
keep the fight going," Conaway said. "Roadblocks and struggles are
just life. Anger is much better than depression for getting things
done."

The question is how broadly even the Supreme Court justices want to
interpret their decision.

Thomas' ruling appeared to question whether the 'medical necessity'
defense could ever be successfully used, since Congress did not
create such an exception in federal drug laws.

In a concurring opinion signed by three justices, Justice John Paul
Stevens stressed that the ruling only applied to those who grow and
distribute medical marijuana, not patients in California, Colorado
and five other states with similar laws.

"The overbroad language of the court's opinion (by Thomas) is
especially unfortunate given the importance of showing respect for
the sovereign states that comprise our Federal Union," Stevens wrote.

He said the court has a duty to avoid conflicts between federal law
and states that "have chosen to 'serve as a laboratory' in the trial
of 'novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of
the country.' "

Although the ruling's effect on Colorado is still up for debate,
opponents of medical marijuana are cheering.

"I had to hear it twice because I couldn't believe they were actually
smart enough to rule that way," said Eleaner Scott, vice-chairman of
the Westminster Area Community Awareness Action Team.

Dr. Joel Karlin, co-chairman of Coloradans Against Legalizing
Marijuana, said the ruling would make it tougher to find doctors
willing to help patients and take their chances with federal laws.

"I'm hoping it has brought some finality to the issue in Colorado," he said.