COURT REJECTS MEDICAL POT LAWS

U.S. Justices Rule That Patients Who Use Marijuana Risk Federal
Prosecution, but It's Unclear If Drug Agents Will Pursue Them

A divided U. S. Supreme Court on Monday said federal law enforcement
can disregard state medical marijuana laws and seize plants and make
arrests.

Two California women claimed that their personal cultivation and
consumption of marijuana in compliance with state law was beyond the
reach of federal authority, which is limited to matters related to
interstate commerce.

But in a 6-3 decision, the court disagreed.

"One need not have a degree in economics to understand why a
nationwide exemption for the vast quantity of marijuana (or other
drugs) locally cultivated for personal use (which presumably would
include use by friends, neighbors, and family members) may have a
substantial impact on the interstate market for this extraordinarily
popular substance," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote.

The ruling covers 11 states with medical marijuana laws, including
Oregon, but the practical impact was far from clear.

Oregon officials said the decision confirmed their earlier conclusion
that state law only protected medical marijuana users from local
prosecution.

"Today's decision clarified that the federal government has clear
authority to prosecute cardholders who are in compliance with Oregon
law," said Kevin Neely, spokesman for the Oregon Department of Justice.

But just because federal drug agents can go after medical marijuana
users, including more than 10,000 in Oregon, does not mean they will.

Since California passed the first medical marijuana law in 1996,
federal drug agents have rarely pursued the type of small-scale,
backyard growing operations that typical medical marijuana users operate.

Instead, the Drug Enforcement Administration focuses on large-scale
marijuana growing and sales.

"We go after major trafficking organizations," DEA spokesman Bill
Grant in Washington, D.C., said Monday. "Our mission hasn't changed."

Monday's ruling produced a seemingly odd split on the court, with the
most liberal justices voting to uphold federal law enforcement power
and some of the most conservative justices voting to limit it.

But while drugs was the topic, the ruling involved a fundamental
dispute over the limits of federal authority.

The core of the majority consisted of the four justices -- Stevens,
Ruth Ginsburg, David Souter and Stephen Breyer -- who have defended an
expansive federal authority that dates to the New Deal. Indeed, the
majority opinion hangs its hat on a seminal 1942 Supreme Court
decision that established a broad federal authority that conservatives
have only begun to chip away at in the past decade.

In dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor countered that it was
important to "protect historic spheres of state sovereignty from
excessive federal encroachment and thereby to maintain the
distribution of power fundamental to our federalist system of
government."

Joining O'Connor were Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Clarence
Thomas, two of the court's most conservative members.

The same general issue of federal authority is at stake in the fight
over Oregon's assisted suicide law, which the Supreme Court will take
up next fall.

But Monday's decision provided no clear suggestion how the court might
rule on federal attempts to punish physicians who prescribe lethal
doses of drugs to terminally ill patients, several observers said.

Opponents of medical marijuana lauded the ruling for at least
preventing a bad precedent.

But there also was acknowledgment that the DEA does not have the
resources to go after every medical marijuana user.

"How often do you run into a DEA agent? You run into a local cop more
often," said Nick Coleman, counsel to the House Government Reform
subcommittee on drug policy. The subcommittee is headed by Rep. Mark
Souder, R-Ind., an outspoken opponent of state medical marijuana laws.

Furthermore, Coleman noted, it may be hard for the federal government
to prosecute in jurisdictions where voters have legalized medical marijuana.

"If you go into Oakland and try to arrest someone for medical
marijuana, you have to try them before a jury in that district," he
said.

The ruling caused an immediate, if muted reaction in Oregon. The
Department of Health and Human Services temporarily suspended giving
out medical marijuana cards until it can talk to Justice Department
attorneys.

The state's decision does not affect current medical marijuana
cardholders in Oregon. Nor does it lift legal protections from people
who apply for medical marijuana cards in the meantime.

Monday's Supreme Court ruling didn't stop legislators in Salem from
moving forward with bills relating to Oregon's medical marijuana program.

In the House, there's an effort under way by Oregon employers to
overturn a Court of Appeals decision that said workplaces might have
to accommodate workers who use marijuana under the program.

A House judiciary subcommittee Monday held a hearing on House Bill
2693, which would allow Oregon employers with drug-free workplace
policies to fire workers found with marijuana in their system.

If the bill makes it out of the Republican-controlled House, it could
face significant opposition in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

"I still think it violates a disabled person's right to hold a job,"
said Sen. Bill Morrisette, D-Springfield. "I would hope that we would
not even have a hearing on it on the Senate side."

In addition to Oregon and California, Alaska, Washington, Colorado,
Nevada, Maine, Montana, Maryland, Hawaii and Vermont have passed
medical marijuana laws.