MEDICAL POT USE SNUFFED OUT BY COURT

In a major setback for medical marijuana users, the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled Monday there is no exception in federal law for people to
use cannabis to ease their pain from cancer, AIDS or other illnesses.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who delivered the court's 8-0 opinion, said
marijuana is not a medical necessity that warrants an exemption under
the federal Controlled Substances Act, which bans the manufacture and
distribution of marijuana and other drugs.

Medical marijuana advocates said they believe the ruling does not
invalidate state laws that allow the medical use of marijuana,
including Proposition 215, passed by California voters in 1996.
However, it does mean that anyone distributing the drug for medical
purposes in those eight states can be prosecuted under federal law.

Scott Imler, president of the Los Angeles Cannabis Resource Center,
decried the ruling, which stems from a case involving the Oakland
Cannabis Buyers Cooperative.

"Today's ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court is not only a slap in the
face of California voters who compassionately voted to implement
Proposition 215, but, more importantly, it is effectively a death
sentence for thousands of patients who rely on medicinal marijuana to
ease their pain and suffering, tolerate treatment and basically hold
down their food every day," he said.

Imler said the West Hollywood-based resource center, which supplies
marijuana to more than 1,900 members -- 80 percent of whom suffer
from AIDS -- will continue to operate despite the Supreme Court
ruling.

Imler, who uses marijuana to control epileptic seizures, said a
meeting will be held Saturday to discuss legal options.

State Attorney General Bill Lockyer issued a statement saying that
states traditionally have the responsibility to determine public
health and safety.

"It is unfortunate that the court was unable to respect California's
historical 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.

He also said the high court's opinion will be reviewed before any
recommendations are made or conclusions reached about California's
law.

Jeff Meyers, a board member of the Ventura County Alliance for
Marijuana Patients, said he believes that individuals who grow and
use the plant as approved under Proposition 215 can still do so
legally.

"All (the ruling) did was say an entity like a cannabis club could
not claim medical necessity in distributing marijuana," Meyers said.

"It confirmed the government's own federal law, which was in effect
when 215 passed. It doesn't nullify state law."

Meyers pointed to Justice John Paul Stevens' concurring opinion,
which states that Californians passed Proposition 215 so seriously
ill patients and their caregivers could cultivate and possess
marijuana if recommended by their doctors.

"This case does not call upon the court to deprive all such patients
of the benefit of the necessity defense to federal prosecution, when
the case itself does not involve any such patients," Stevens wrote.