SUPREME COURT QUESTIONS MEDICAL MARIJUANA USE

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With the federal government warning against
creating "marijuana pharmacies," a number of Supreme Court justices
expressed reservations on Wednesday about allowing marijuana to be
given to patients who prove cannabis was medically necessary.

In a major medical marijuana case involving a California cannabis
club, the justices appeared sympathetic to the government's argument
that patients may not get marijuana as a "medical necessity" because
it has been classified as an illegal drug under federal law.

The hour-long hearing marked a watershed for the U.S. medical
marijuana movement, which has been mired in legal battles ever since
California in 1996 approved the nation's first initiative legalizing
medicinal use of the drug.

U.S. Justice Department lawyer Barbara Underwood
criticized a U.S. appeals court ruling for allowing marijuana clubs in
California to distribute the drug to those who prove cannabis was
medically necessary.

She said the ruling "allows the operation of marijuana
pharmacies."

Underwood said federal agencies had not established that marijuana was
medically useful. In fact, she said agencies had established the drug
has a high potential for abuse and alternative pain relievers exist,
including the synthetic form of marijuana's active ingredient.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked about examples of
sick patients, such as a man with cancer who was constantly vomiting
and benefited from using marijuana. "Am I wrong in thinking there has
been quite a bit of this going on?" she asked.

Several justices asked Underwood why the Justice Department did not
simply bring criminal charges against the club, instead of the civil
lawsuit seeking an injunction to stop it from distributing marijuana.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist asked Gerald
Uelmen, the lawyer for the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative,
whether there was any other case in which the Supreme Court has
recognized the "medical necessity defense."

Uelmen admitted no other case existed, prompting Rehnquist to remark
that Congress ruled out that defense when it placed marijuana on the
listed of illegal drugs under the federal law called the Controlled
Substances Act.

Rehnquist Asks How Ill A Person Must Be To Use Marijuana

Rehnquist asked how serious the medical condition must be to justify
use of marijuana, saying cannabis did not save lives, but only eased a
person's pain and provided comfort.

Uelmen said marijuana may be provided to seriously ill patients facing
"imminent harm," such as death, starvation or going blind.

Justice Anthony Kennedy disagreed with Uelmen's
argument that it would create only a very narrow exception for medical
marijuana use. "It doesn't sound limited to me at all," he said.
"That's a huge rewrite of the statute."

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the U.S. appeals
court "appeared to create a blanket exception to the Controlled
Substances Act."

Justice Antonin Scalia told Uelmen the defense can
be raised by an individual, not by "someone who opens up a business
to provide illegal drugs to those who need it."

Under questioning from Scalia, Uelmen said the defense could apply to
use of other illegal drugs by sick patients.

Scalia called it an "easy gamble" for the patient. "A jury versus
the grim reaper. I'll take the jury any day," he said.

The court will issue its ruling by the end of June.