HIGH COURT SEEMS SKEPTICAL OF MARIJUANA AS MEDICINE

WASHINGTON -- Marijuana is an illegal drug, even if voters like the idea of
using it in medical therapy, the federal government argued Wednesday as the
Supreme Court took a first look at the debate over prescription pot.

The court's ruling, expected by June, likely would settle whether patients
may get marijuana as a "medical necessity'' even though it is an illegal
drug under federal law.

A ruling for the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative would allow special
marijuana clubs to resume distributing the drug in California, which passed
one of the nation's first medical marijuana laws in 1996.

A ruling for the federal government would not negate the California voter
initiative, but would effectively prevent clubs like Oakland's from
distributing the drug.

Several justices seemed skeptical of the marijuana-as-medicine argument in
general, and of the notion that marijuana distributors have what the club's
lawyers call a medical-necessity defense in court.

That defense would essentially have a judge or jury agree that someone's
need for the drug overrides the law.

If that is so, the someone should be an actual patient, rather than a
business organized to dispense or sell drugs, Justice Antonin Scalia
suggested.

"That's a vast expansion beyond any necessity defense I've ever heard of,''
Scalia said.
Justice Anthony Kennedy seemed to agree.

"You're asking us to hold that this defense exists . . . with no specific
plaintiff before us, no specific case,'' Kennedy told the club's lawyer,
Gerald Uelman.

At the White House, spokesman Ari Fleischer said President Bush supports
federal prohibitions on marijuana, but also respects states' rights to pass
referendums like California's.

"The president is opposed to the legalization of marijuana, including for
medicinal purposes,'' he said.

A vocal assortment of interest groups and activists supporting the use of
marijuana as medical treatment mounted an energetic public relations
campaign ahead of Wednesday's oral arguments, and activists on both sides
gathered outside the court.

One woman carried a picket depicting a red "Stop'' sign. It read: ``Stop
arresting patients for medical marijuana.''

On the other side, Scott Rich of the conservative Family Research Council
said endorsing marijuana as therapy sends the wrong message to young people.

"Marijuana is not good medicine, to put it simply,'' he said.

A ruling against the club would mean the government could prosecute
distributors aggressively in federal court, regardless of whether states
have approved medical marijuana use.

That would force providers underground or out of business altogether,
advocates of medical marijuana say.

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer is backing the Oakland club,
arguing that the state has the right to enforce its law allowing seriously
ill patients to use marijuana.

Some patients and doctors say the drug relieves nausea, improves energy
levels and helps combat the symptoms of ailments ranging from cancer to
AIDS to glaucoma and multiple sclerosis.

The Clinton administration sued the Oakland group and five other California
distribution clubs in 1998, arguing that the clubs broke federal drug law
by distributing, and in some cases growing, marijuana for medical use.