JUSTICES SEE NO LEGAL BASIS FOR PRESCRIBING MARIJUANA

WASHINGTON - West Coast-style compassionate liberalism ran into the
strict conservatism of the Supreme Court on Wednesday as the justices
took up California's medical marijuana law for the first time.

The court's conservative justices said they saw no legal basis for
giving the drug to people who are seriously ill.

In their comments and questions during the oral argument, they gave
every indication they will rule that federal law strictly forbids the
distribution of marijuana and that neither California's voters nor
other judges are free to make exceptions for those who suffer pain and
nausea.

The medical marijuana laws have proven popular with the voters, but
not with federal officials.

In 1996, 56 percent of California voters approved the Compassionate
Use Act.

Voters in Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado and
Maine also have approved medical marijuana ballot initiatives. In
Hawaii, the Legislature passed a similar law, and the governor signed
it last year.

But federal officials insist these state marijuana laws are
essentially void and meaningless.

"There is no accepted medical use of marijuana," acting U.S. Solicitor
General Barbara Underwood told the justices Wednesday. Regardless of
the state laws, there is "no room to distribute marijuana without the
approval of the U.S. attorney general," she added.

Two years ago, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals gave new hope to
advocates of medical marijuana. The circuit court refused to close a
cannabis club in Oakland, Calif., and ruled that marijuana may be
given to patients for whom it is a "medical necessity." But U.S.
attorneys appealed, setting the stage for Wednesday's argument in the
Supreme Court.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, siding with the government, sharply
criticized the West Coast judges.

"It seems to me the 9th Circuit erred at the point it created this
blanket exception to the Controlled Substances Act," she said,
referring to the federal drug law.

Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelman, representing the
cannabis club, disagreed with her characterization. "This is a very
narrow exception for a very limited number of people," he said. "They
are gravely ill, in pain and unable to eat." But Justice Anthony
Kennedy interjected. "It doesn't sound like a very narrow exception,"
he said. "This is a huge rewriting of the statute." Chief Justice
William Rehnquist said federal authorities maintain there is "no known
medical use" for marijuana. And Congress has "ruled out the defense
you are advocating." "Is there any case where this court has used this
'medical necessity' defense." the chief justice asked Uelman.

When the law professor began an explanation, Rehnquist demanded a
yes-or-no answer. "No," Uelman replied. The Supreme Court has not
permitted an exception to the zero-tolerance drug laws, and federal
authorities reject the notion as well, he acknowledged.

Justice Antonin Scalia also was relentless in criticizing the
marijuana exception. Justice Clarence Thomas, who sat silently as
usual, consistently votes with the conservatives to form a majority.

While it is likely the Supreme Court will reject the "medical
necessity" exception to the drug laws, it is not clear what that will
mean.

The justices could rule narrowly and say only the cannabis clubs have
no legal license to distribute marijuana for medical use. Or they
could speak broadly and say federal drug laws void the states'
medical-marijuana laws.

Even if the court broadly rejects the medical marijuana exception, it
is not clear federal authorities can enforce their no-marijuana policy.

Justice David Souter said jurors in California are not likely to
convict those who give marijuana to persons who are very sick.

"Isn't the real concern here the popularity of these laws." he asked
the government's lawyer. "It will be very difficult to get a
conviction from a jury."