DEBATE HEATING UP OVER POT USE

WASHINGTON -- Arguing that the distribution of marijuana for medical
purposes undermines the nation's drug laws and leads to abuse, the
government urged the Supreme Court on Wednesday to stop a California
cooperative from dispensing the drug to the seriously ill.

But a lawyer for the medical marijuana club maintained that it merely
wants to hand out a "life-saving drug" that is necessary to alleviate
suffering. For many people suffering from diseases such as AIDS and
cancer, marijuana is the only hope for combating unbearable nausea and
lack of appetite, he said.

The emotional tone of the debate, which has pitted law enforcement
against advocates of the terminally ill, wasn't lost on the justices.
Some noted how marijuana has helped terminally ill patients, while
others suggested that federal law prohibiting its distribution still
must prevail.

But most of the hourlong argument focused on the technical legal issue
in the case and whether lower courts had properly refused to stop the
marijuana clubs from distributing marijuana.

To resolve the debate, the high court must decide whether lower courts
may allow the clubs to rely on a so-called "medical necessity" defense
against federal drug distribution charges.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that medical
necessity could be a defense if a distributor could show the drug
served seriously ill patients who faced imminent harm without
marijuana and had no other legal alternatives.

With that legal guidance, a trial judge allowed the clubs to continue
their business. The Supreme Court in August stopped the cooperatives
from dispensing marijuana until it resolved the case.

The court's decision could have a wide-ranging impact, because nine
states have approved medical marijuana laws and others are considering
them. Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada,
Oregon and Washington already have laws on the books.

Acting Solicitor General Barbara Underwood argued Wednesday that the
federal Controlled Substances Act did not allow the defense of medical
necessity, regardless of what those state laws provided.

"The statute leaves no room for the [cooperative] to distribute
marijuana," she said, "and no room for a court to consider such a claim."

The appeals court ruling, she said, authorized "marijuana pharmacies"
that undermined law enforcement's ability to protect the public from
dangerous drugs. Moreover, she said, there are legal drugs available
to seriously ill patients that could alleviate such symptoms as
nausea, which marijuana also is said to temper.

But Gerald Uelmen, the lawyer for the Oakland Cannabis Buyers
Cooperative, maintained that marijuana was critical for some patients.
Because the patients have a medical need for the drug, the
cooperatives should be able to distribute it despite the federal law
that would outlaw that.

"The patient says, 'I have to have it to live,'" he
said.

In another case Wednesday, justices heard arguments in a financial
battle between freelance writers and the nation's major media
companies over who owns the rights to material that is published and
then stored in electronic databases.

In what is being called a historic publishing case in the digital age,
a lawyer for the freelancers maintained that the media companies have
allowed electronic databases to reproduce tens of thousands of
articles without paying the writers.