BATTLE LINES DRAWN ON MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA

The Bush administration turns to the Supreme Court today for help in waging
the war on drugs in a sector where popular support is growing for doctors
who prescribe marijuana as a medicine.

The legal issue awaiting an answer from the court: Is there a "medical
necessity" exemption to the federal law that bans growing or distributing
marijuana? A federal judge in San Francisco has ruled that there is such an
exemption, if narrow in scope.

But the Supreme Court, in a preliminary action last November, temporarily
blocked that ruling until the justices themselves could rule.
Administrations come and go, sometimes differing on antidrug policy, but on
one thing there has been routine agreement:

Marijuana, they argue, should stay on the list of banned substances.

And yet, in no phase of the federal war on drugs is there such a wide gulf
between official policy and public sentiment than on the use of marijuana
to ease the pain or suffering of some seriously ill or dying patients. Time
after time, government policy has been rejected in the voting booth.

Since 1976, voters in eight states and Washington, D.C., have gone to the
polls to vote on ballot measures supporting marijuana as a treatment
alternative, and every time the measure has passed, sometimes by large margins.

Legislatures in 26 states - including Massachusetts - and the nation's
capital have passed laws recognizing the therapeutic value of marijuana and
permitting its use for medicine in limited situations.

The federal Controlled Substances Act, however, classifies marijuana as an
illegal drug and puts it on a schedule of drugs that have no medical uses.
The law permits changes in those categories but, so far, the government has
refused to change marijuana's status.

Advocates of marijuana as medicine have tried to get the drug reclassified,
on the theory it does have recognized medical value - a theory that
advocates say has been supported by panels at the National Academy of
Sciences, the National Institute of Medicine, and by private medical
groups. The claims are that marijuana can be used to ease pain and nausea,
and to treat some aspects of AIDS, multiple sclerosis, and glaucoma.

As the dispute reaches the Supreme Court for an hour long hearing today,
the divide between the two sides is wide.

The Bush administration's Justice Department and its supporters argue that
nothing less is at stake than the practical legalization of marijuana, even
for casual users. But proponents of medical marijuana argue that nothing
more is involved than access for a select group of patients under tightly
controlled circumstances.

As a result of the Supreme Court's blocking of the California judge's
ruling last November, distribution by "cannabis clubs" has halted in
California, postponing the effect of an initiative approved by the state's
voters in 1996: the Compassionate Use Act. The voters approved a law to
permit the cultivation and use of marijuana with a doctor's permission, for
a variety of illnesses ranging from cancer to migraine headaches.

US District Judge Charles R. Breyer of San Francisco last July permitted
limited distribution of marijuana. He is the brother of Supreme Court
Justice Stephen G. Breyer. As a result of that relationship, Justice Breyer
has disqualified himself from taking part in the coming decision.

The California judge exempted from the federal ban the distribution of
marijuana to patients with serious medical conditions who need the
substance to treat or ease their condition, have no legal alternative, and
will suffer "imminent harm" if denied access to it.

The Justice Department, in its appeal, argues that Congress has expressly
rejected such a defense to a prosecution for distributing marijuana or
other drugs on the banned list.

Under existing law, the department has said, marijuana may be distributed
legally only through a tightly controlled, federally approved research
project, through a downgrading of its status to one recognizing medical
uses, or through Food and Drug Administration approval of it as a safe and
effective medicine.

The buyers' cooperative in Oakland defends its distribution policies,
saying that members must provide a statement from a doctor who treats them
agreeing to marijuana therapy, and must submit to a screening interview by
the staff as well as verification of the doctor's approval. No smoking is
allowed on the property.