THINK TANK CONFRONTS MEDICAL MARIJUANA USE

The Cato Institute in Washington sponsored a panel discussion on medical
marijuana that bears directly on Wednesday's hearing by the U.S. Supreme
Court of a major case dealing with the controversial treatment.

The libertarian think tank's forum, "The Law and Politics of Medical
Marijuana," featured Alan Bock, author of "Waiting to Inhale: The Politics
of Medical Marijuana." Bock is an editorial writer at the Orange County
(Calif.) Register. Also participating was Kevin Zeese, president of the
Washington-based Common Sense for Drug Policy, a pro-decriminalization
advocacy group.

The Tuesday panel focused on the issues raised by Wednesday's case before
the high court, which heard argument involving the Oakland Cannabis Buyers'
Cooperative, a northern California-based group that provides marijuana for
medicinal uses.

"It's much like life. It only ends when you give up and it's over," Jeff
Jones, the executive director of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative,
told United Press International in an interview before the panel discussion.

"We're going to continue this one until we feel the rights of the patient
are respected and put in a dignified spot where they can end their time on
this earth in a way that doesn't make them feel shunned for just following
their doctor's advice."

Panelists emphasized that the discussion of medical marijuana centers on
relief for victims of illness. "This is not a front for people who want to
smoke marijuana," said Zeese. "This is real; these are patients who are
suffering."

Zeese cited accounts of children who were able to eat after chemotherapy
thanks to medical marijuana, as well as sufferers from multiple sclerosis
who were able to walk without help thanks to smoking marijuana. Once the
initial treatment takes place, the amount of marijuana ingested by patients
decreases, he said.

The panel attempted to minimize the impact of a potential loss before the
Court, while emphasizing the gains of a win. Bock pointed out that this was
a civil case, rather than a criminal case, and that the court will not be
ruling on California's state-level laws sanctioning medicinal use of the drug.

The principle outcome of the case, he said, will be to determine if the
"medical necessity" defense, which uses medical need to justify using
illegal substances, can be used in this instance.

Zeese, an attorney long active in drug decriminalization movements, said
that "if the government were smart," it would use a Supreme Court ruling in
favor of the Oakland Collective to establish a regulated program to make
marijuana available through a prescription system.

If the court rules against the collective, Zeese said, "it will not be good
news for the federal government." One result, he explained, would be a
splitting and multiplying of the suppliers of medicinal marijuana. "There
will be 1,000 more dispensers, not just a dozen, or two," he said. Some
active resisters will defy the law, he added. "Martyrdom may be a
possibility; conflict will be a certainty," Zeese noted.

"There is no way the Supreme Court is going to put this genie back into the
bottle," said Zeese.

Bock said that new technological advances allow THC, a key ingredient in
marijuana's effects, to be ingested without smoking, either through
"vaporizing, or in the form of a jelled tablet. A lot of patients prefer
it," he said.

However, these new forms of the drug are still illegal because of the THC
they contain, which is the ingredient that gives the drug its potency as
well as its effectiveness in helping the ill.

Wealthy financier and philanthropist George Soros funded the 1996 ballot
initiative in which nearly two-thirds of California voters approved medical
marijuana. "It was not a case of a rich financier coming in and doing a
slick ad campaign on California," said Bock. He described how the movements
to decriminalize marijuana and allow medicinal use of the drug had existed
in California for many years before the successful 1996 initiative. He said
that polls show that while two-thirds of Californians oppose marijuana
legalization, two-thirds also support medicinal use of the drug.

"This seems to be an issue that when people start thinking about it and
talking about it, it cuts across ideological lines pretty well," said Bock.

Indeed, Bock said that as far as he could tell, four years after the ballot
measure, "there is no grass-roots opposition to medical marijuana, not
anymore." All opposition comes from law enforcement groups and public
officials, he added.

Both panelists acknowledged drug czar Barry McCaffrey's sincerity in firmly
opposing the decriminalization of medical marijuana, but expressed
skepticism about the campaign he is waging. As part of his campaign to
stamp out illegal drug use, McCaffrey has opposed any weakening of laws
against marijuana use, including the campaign to make the drug available as
part of medical therapy.

Bock cited an interview he conducted with McCaffrey, in which the former
general said of medical marijuana recipients: "They're all fake!"

Zeese said that "conflict creates the issue," and that the highly
publicized drug war works to the advantage of proponents of
decriminalization by focusing attention on the issue. "We praise God for
Barry McCaffrey," he said.

Zeese acknowledged that he favored decriminalization of the drug, but said
proponents of the drug war may be overplaying their hand. Opponents of
prohibition called for legalization of beer and wine during the 1920s, he
said. "Because they refused to allow beer and wine, prohibitionists lost on
vodka, gin and bourbon," he said.

Both panelists said that the drug war was far from over, but Zeese claimed
to be optimistic.

"I've been seeing decriminalization of marijuana as a hurdle, but it may
become a sprint," he said. "The idea that anything goes in fighting the
drug war is not an idea that plays anymore."