IN CALIFORNIA, RULING ON DRUG SPURS BITTERNESS AND RESOLVE

SAN FRANCISCO, May 14 -- For supporters of medical marijuana, today's
unanimous United States Supreme Court ruling upholding a federal law
banning the distribution of marijuana for any reason was a major blow,
especially coming at a time when national polls show a growing acceptance
of the drug for the sick and dying.

But the ruling also made clear, advocates of marijuana for seriously ill
patients said, that Congress could change the laws that ban the drug.

"This decision does not render medical marijuana laws moot," said Bill
Zimmerman, the director of Americans for Medical Rights, an organization in
Santa Monica, Calif., that has sponsored eight successful state medical
marijuana initiatives.

Nor, he said, does it prevent individuals from obtaining medical marijuana.
"It only goes to clubs -- those who distribute the drug in large
quantities," Mr. Zimmerman said. The justices' decision, he added, "was
unanimous because they were ruling on this narrow issue of distributing a
banned substance."

Because the decision did not explicitly prevent states from distributing
the drug, medical marijuana advocates said they would encourage states to
set up distribution systems for the drug. Nevada and Maine have bills
pending that would do so.

"That's one way around this ruling," Mr. Zimmerman said. He also said the
Supreme Court left the door open for Congress to change the law and allow
for medical exemptions.

The Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers'
Cooperative, No. 00-151, upheld an injunction against the cooperative
issued by the United States attorney for the Northern District, based in
San Francisco. The United States attorney's office has been battling the
Oakland club since California in 1996 passed the first state law legalizing
medical marijuana. The office had issued the injunction on the grounds that
the cooperative was violating a 1970 federal law that classified marijuana
as a Schedule I drug, dangerous and with no possible medicinal value. In
this case, federal law superseded the California voter initiative known as
Proposition 215.

The Supreme Court decision means that the half-dozen medical marijuana
clubs that have operated in Northern California, representing thousands of
members suffering from illnesses like cancer and AIDS, are illegal. The
ruling, medical marijuana advocates said, could serve as a precedent that
United States attorneys in other districts could use. In essence, it
affects all eight other states with medical marijuana laws -- Alaska,
Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii (which has
the only such law passed by a legislature).

California's attorney general, Bill Lockyer, calling the ruling
unfortunate, said he needed to review it further before reaching any
recommendation or conclusions about California's law. "I appreciate the
fact that federal law trumps state enactments," Mr. Lockyer said. But, he
added, "the responsibility for determining what is necessary to provide for
public health and safety has traditionally been left to the states."

A lawyer for the buyers' cooperative, Robert Raich, said the decision did
not address constitutional issues raised by the group that it would argue
in further proceedings in federal court in San Francisco. "The case isn't
over," Mr. Raich said. "This is just the end of round one."

Despite the avowals to fight, reaction to the court's decision was bitter
in San Francisco and Oakland, which spearheaded California's groundbreaking
medical marijuana law.

Members of the cooperative had won a round in court when the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a ruling by Judge Charles
Breyer of Federal District Court, the brother of Justice Stephen G. Breyer
of the Supreme Court (who abstained from the case) and ruled that medical
necessity was a legal defense for the club.

Jeff Jones, executive director of the cooperative, said today that the
Supreme Court's decision had set the fight back a few years.

"We view this as echoing decisions past of the high court, such as the Dred
Scott decision of the mid-1850's that said slavery was legal," said Mr.
Jones, whose cooperative was shut down by federal marshals in 1998 but
later reopened.

Medical marijuana users said they would not stop using the drug.

"I'm not going to let my children watch me die," said Angel McClary, a
35-year-old mother of two who uses marijuana to alleviate the symptoms
associated with an inoperable brain tumor and a seizure disorder. "If that
is wrong," she said, "so be it."

Terence Hallinan, the San Francisco district attorney, who has been an
advocate for medical marijuana since before it became legal in California,
said he would do nothing to shut down the clubs that have been quietly
operating in the city. "I'm absolutely convinced it helps people with
serious illnesses, especially AIDS," Mr. Hallinan said.

But he acknowledged he could do nothing to stop the federal authorities.
The United States attorney's office in San Francisco referred all calls to
the Department of Justice in Washington. A spokeswoman there, Susan Dryden,
said, "I can't comment on any ongoing investigations. But we will enforce
federal law."