COURT EVICTS FEDS FROM PATIENTS' GARDENS

Thousands of seriously ill Californians who rely on medical marijuana
to relieve their pain, restore their appetite, treat their nausea or
help with a slew of other symptoms are breathing a little easier this
week as a result of a federal court order.

In the case of County of Santa Cruz et al. v. Ashcroft, U.S. District
Judge Jeremy Fogel issued a temporary injunction barring the federal
government from raiding the gardens of the Wo/Men's Alliance for
Medical Marijuana, or WAMM. The ruling allows the collective to resume
cultivation free from the fear of further federal prosecution. This
relief comes 18 months after a brutal Drug Enforcement Administration
raid on WAMM in Santa Cruz, and a year after the collective's
seriously ill members filed suit against the federal government to
stop the law enforcement harassment.

Last week's order is the first time that a court has applied the law
to protect the right of a group of sick people to grow and share their
medicine.

This is no small victory.

In the seven years since the voters of California overwhelmingly
passed Proposition 215, which permits patients to use medical
marijuana with a physician's recommendation, the federal government
has done everything in its power to undermine the will of the voters
of California and the eight other states that subsequently passed
their own medical marijuana laws.

The WAMM collective is a group of terminally and chronically ill
patients and their caregivers who grow and use medicine with the
recommendation of their physicians in compliance with state law and
local ordinances. WAMM is a true collective, where members do not pay
for their medicine and everyone contributes in his or her own way to
the community.

On Sept. 23, 2002, 30 federal DEA agents raided the WAMM gardens in
the Santa Cruz hills.

These agents held the collective's founders and a patient at gunpoint
while they confiscated their marijuana plants.

The founders, Valerie and Mike Corral, were taken into police custody
but never charged with a crime. After the raid, the city and county of
Santa Cruz joined WAMM and seven patient members in suing the federal
government.

Fortunately, the Santa Cruz ruling is not an anomaly.

It is the latest in a growing trend of judicial support for state
medical marijuana laws. Last year, in Conant v. Walters, the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the free speech right of physicians to
discuss medical marijuana with their patients.

In December, in Raich v. Ashcroft, the same court affirmed the right
of seriously ill patients to grow or obtain medical marijuana and use
it, upon recommendation of a physician within a state that has
legalized it, as long as there is no commerce involved.

In the criminal courts, federal district court judges have been
departing from the sentencing guidelines and offering lighter
sentences for individuals, like Ed Rosenthal, who were convicted of
marijuana cultivation offenses when they were providing medicine to
patients. These legal developments are in step with the growing number
of Americans, their physicians and local governments that support the
legalization of medical marijuana.

Last week's court order provides a real opportunity for local
governments to join with patient groups to help patients gain access
to quality medicine.

For example, San Francisco voters passed Measure S in 2002, opening
the door for the city to consider ways to cultivate and provide
medical marijuana, including discussions about establishing collective
gardens in that city.

It would be naive to think the medical marijuana battle is over. The
federal government is expected to appeal the WAMM and the Raich
decisions. Still, this is a huge step forward.

In the face of enormous budget deficits and an ongoing war on
terrorism, the Bush/Ashcroft administration has made the war on sick
and dying patients a cornerstone in its attempt to prop up the failing
multibillion-dollar war on drugs.

But by evicting Ashcroft and his DEA from patients' medicine cabinets,
the courts are setting an important precedent in helping to protect
the rights of patients and the will of voters.