COURT RULING THREATENS NEVADA MARIJUANA PLAN

Nevada's medical marijuana plan could go up in smoke as a result of a U.S.
Supreme Court ruling Monday -- even though the state's voters
overwhelmingly favor the proposal.

The high court ruled that a federal law classifying the drug as illegal
makes no exception for ill patients. The court's action doesn't strike down
state laws allowing medical use of marijuana, but leaves those distributing
the drug for that purpose open to prosecution.

In Nevada, voters by a 2-1 margin have approved medical marijuana. The task
of implementing the voters' mandate was left to the Legislature.

The result was AB453, to let seriously ill Nevadans grow their own
marijuana for pain relief. The bill also would ease penalties for anyone
caught with small amounts of the illegal weed.

Also proposed was SB545, seen as a backup proposal, which would make the
drug available only to a limited number of people for a marijuana research
study program.

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, D-Las Vegas, who proposed AB453, said
the court ruling "has no affect on our bill. Not one word of the ruling
diminishes the use of medical marijuana."

Giunchigliani added the ruling had more to do with the distribution of
marijuana for medical purposes, and her bill is safe since it doesn't deal
with distribution.

But Assembly Judiciary Chairman Bernie Anderson, D-Sparks, disagreed,
saying AB453 is "probably not going to make it -- and it's a tragedy."

Senate Judiciary Chairman Mark James, R-Las Vegas, agreed with Anderson
that the Supreme Court ruling could stop the plan, although he's asking the
Legislature's legal researchers for an analysis.

But at this point, he said it looks like "we wouldn't process the bill. We
wouldn't act on something we know to be unconstitutional."

Senate Human Resources and Facilities Chairman Ray Rawson, R-Las Vegas,
whose committee proposed SB545, said the bill "is the only one likely to
meet the terms of the federal law.

"I don't know if it will satisfy those who want to open this up," he added.
"But it does open up the possibility for serious research -- and if the
research shows this is good, then we're a lot farther ahead."

Dan Geary, a leader of Nevadans for Medical Rights which pushed the
marijuana issue onto the ballot, said the Legislature could still move
ahead with Giunchigliani's bill despite the high court ruling.

Geary said the ruling was limited in its scope, and in any case "the Nevada
voters have spoken." He added that Nevadans for Medical Rights doesn't
favor Rawson's SB545 because "it's almost a dishonest approach. It just
doesn't implement the will of the people."

Geary's group is part of Americans for Medical Rights, which sponsored
eight successful medical marijuana initiatives around the nation.

Bill Zimmerman, director of the national group, said the Supreme Court
ruling rejected one form of marijuana distribution -- a cooperative
arrangement with city approval -- but "does not foreclose creation of
state-sponsored medical marijuana distribution systems."

"Two states, Nevada and Maine, are now actively considering such
legislation," he added. "The question of federal supremacy in such matters
is for another day."

Besides Nevada and Maine, voters in Arizona, Alaska, California, Colorado,
Oregon and Washington have approved ballot initiatives allowing medical
marijuana. In Hawaii, the legislature passed a similar law and the governor
signed it last year.

In Nevada, voters authorized use of marijuana by those suffering from
cancer, AIDS, glaucoma and other painful and potentially terminal
illnesses. The amendment to the Nevada Constitution easily won voter
approval in 1998 and again last November.