Q&A -- Medical Marijuana

SEEDS OF U.S. POT DEBATE WERE SOWN IN STATE

California has long been at the center of the medical marijuana
debate. In June, the state drew attention after a U.S. Supreme Court
decision denied two California women protection against federal
prosecution for using medicinal cannabis.

Fallout from the court case has been widespread. Some dispensaries
shut down growing operations, and supporters held protests.

Question: When did the controversy over medical marijuana begin?

Answer: For years an accepted part of Western medicine, cannabis has
been out of the mainstream since the 1930s. But in recent decades,
marijuana reemerged as an alternative therapy, particularly among
AIDS patients, who said it helped stem the wasting effects of the disease.

The biggest shift toward public acceptance came in 1996, when
California voters approved Proposition 215 with 56% of the vote. The
measure made it legal for doctors to recommend marijuana to patients
with serious illnesses. But the measure conflicted with federal law,
which prohibits the use of cannabis for any purpose other than
scientific research.

Opponents said the measure would invite abuse of a drug that had not
been proved medically effective and would create confusion for law enforcement.

But the state's voters decided otherwise, igniting a trend. Nine
other states have also legalized medical marijuana.

Q: What did the Supreme Court do?

A: Angel Raich, an Oakland mother who uses medical marijuana for a
variety of illnesses, joined with another patient, Diane Monson of
Chico, to sue the federal government, hoping to win protection from
federal prosecution.

In a classic states' rights argument, the women said that their
donated medical marijuana was grown in California and therefore not a
product of intrastate commerce subject to federal jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 vote, didn't buy the argument and upheld
the federal government's power to seize and destroy marijuana used as
medicine by seriously ill patients.

In their dissent, some justices suggested that Congress or health
regulators should revisit U.S. laws regarding marijuana as a medicine.

Q: What has the decision meant for California?

A: The case didn't address the constitutionality of California's law,
so medical marijuana remains on the books in the state. Federal
officials could conceivably arrest anyone for a marijuana violation,
but the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency almost always focuses on raiding
big cannabis-growing operations. There are exceptions.

Steven McWilliams came to the attention of federal officials in 2002
through an act of civil disobedience -- distributing medical
marijuana at San Diego City Hall.

McWilliams was arrested and convicted of cultivating 25 plants for
his small medical marijuana collective and was facing jail time
because the Supreme Court ruling undermined his appeal.

McWilliams committed suicide by overdosing on prescription drugs July
11. Americans for Safe Access, an Oakland group, staged memorial
services for McWilliams in San Diego, Los Angeles and other cities
across the country Tuesday.

Q: What does research show?

A: Federal regulators consider marijuana a Schedule 1 drug without
medical benefit and susceptible to abuse. But medical marijuana
activists have petitioned the government to have it reclassified as a
Schedule 2 or 3 drug so doctors might eventually be allowed to prescribe it.

Proponents say there are thousands of scientific papers underscoring
accepted and promising medicinal benefits.

But there are very few large clinical studies that prove a medicinal benefit.

Pot supporters contend the dearth of such research is the fault of a
resistant federal government, which acts as a gatekeeper to such
research. Federal authorities dispute such claims.

Q: Have doctors embraced marijuana for the masses?

A: Not exactly. Pharmacies don't carry it, and any doctor who writes
a prescription could jeopardize his or her federal license to
administer drugs. Instead, doctors make recommendations, much as they
might discuss a dietary supplement with a patient.

But many physicians still avoid recommending cannabis. Some don't
believe it works.

Others worry about the potential for abuse or fear retaliation from
the federal government. Many are bothered by the absence of dosage
and quality standards.

Q: Since pharmacies don't have it, where do patients get their cannabis?

A: Some of California's estimated 100,000 medical marijuana patients
cultivate their own marijuana. But many others don't have the
expertise, space or, in the case of the very ill, the strength to
cultivate the herb.

As a result, many patients have turned to storefront dispensaries or
collectives that sell to patients with written recommendations.

This medical cannabis can come in a variety of forms -- liquid
tinctures, candies, brownies and the regular leafy herb. Many
patients use vaporizers, which allow them to inhale cannabis without
having to breathe in carcinogenic smoke.

The dispensaries have become a target for federal raids, and in some
cases, operators have been arrested.

Q: Has law enforcement been confused by Proposition 215?

A: Many officers and drug agents were confused early on. Since then,
a series of state court cases has helped define the limits of the
law. In urban areas, such as the Bay Area and Los Angeles, the issue
has mostly receded as a policing priority. In rural areas, officers
are more apt to make arrests and confiscate marijuana from people who
claim patient status.

Medical marijuana supporters have also been troubled that California
Highway Patrol officers have made similar seizures, and have filed
suit to block that practice.

Q: Why did the state create photo IDs for users of medical marijuana?

A: The cards were intended to give patients a way to avoid trouble with police.

In the wake of the recent Supreme Court ruling, the state Health
Department this month suspended the project out of fear the cards
could make patients or the state a target for federal prosecution.

But the program was restarted Monday after Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer
advised health officials that state employees were not at risk. But
Lockyer had less encouraging news for patients considering getting a
card -- the information could potentially be used by federal
officials in a prosecution.