STATE EYES POT CASE

A California case could decide how a new medical marijuana law takes shape
in Colorado.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a case that will
determine whether the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative in California
can use a "medical necessity" defense in federal court and resume
distributing pot to patients.

A broad ruling by the court could settle whether a federal law that
considers marijuana to have "no currently accepted medical use" trumps
state initiatives like Colorado's, and influence whether cannabis buyers'
cooperatives start springing up in the state, observers said Wednesday.

If the Oakland cooperative wins, patients' advocates in Colorado would
accelerate efforts to start similar clubs, said Martin Chilcutt, original
author of Amendment 20, the medical marijuana initiative voters approved in
November.

"Our reason and purpose is to bring this all above-ground, in the daylight,
and allow these people to have it, obtain it, grow it and use it without
legal ramifications," Chilcutt said.

That is the worst fear for anti-drug activists such as Eleaner Scott, vice
chairman of the Westminster Area Community Awareness Action Team.

"I think there would be a more liberal look at how to distribute
marijuana," Scott said. "It would give impetus for someone to open a
cannabis club or clubs in Colorado. They'd be really hard to monitor and
there would be room for abuse."

The court is expected to rule this summer.

"There is lots at stake or little at stake, depending on how the court
rules," said Ken Lane, spokesman for Colorado Attorney General Ken Salazar.

The court might issue a narrow decision that affects only the California
buyers' cooperative. A broader ruling could call the validity of Colorado's
initiative into question, Lane said.

"If the Supreme Court rules that federal law preempts state laws, that's
the law of the land," Lane said.

Amendment 20 will allow Coloradans with cancer, glaucoma, HIV and severe
pain to have up to six marijuana plants and 2 ounces of pot in their
possession.

The law did not authorize cannabis clubs, which still leaves patients in a
quandary about where to get the marijuana.

Attorney Gerald Uelmen, who argued the case for the Oakland Cannabis
Buyers' Cooperative, said a defeat would squelch efforts to add cannabis
clubs in Colorado and seven other states with medical marijuana laws.

"I think the enterprises that may be at risk are the Good Samaritans that
may be providing the cannabis," Uelmen said on the steps of the Supreme
Court, where there were a handful of protesters on both sides.

During Wednesday's arguments, Justice Antonin Scalia questioned whether the
"medical necessity" defense should apply to a club, not just an individual
patient.

"If this case goes against Oakland cannabis buyers' club, obviously you're
not likely to see these buyers' clubs pop up in other states," said Keith
Stroup, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of
Marijuana Laws.

The man in charge of implementing Colorado's new law, state medical
director Dr. Richard Hoffman, said a decision favoring the Oakland club
could "make it easier for physicians to work with the program."

"But if they rule the other way, then Colorado's program probably is in
worse shape because there has been a definitive ruling on an issue right
now that is somewhat murky."

Note: Supreme court hears arguments on whether Calif. co-op may use a
'medical necessity' defense.