RULING DOESN'T PROTECT MEDICAL MARIJUANA SELLERS

The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for physicians to recommend
marijuana as part of a patient's treatment, but its decision Tuesday offers
no protection for growers and sellers of "medical marijuana."

The court decision not to take up the appeal of a federal court ruling on
the issue was hailed by medical marijuana proponents as an important step
for the nine states that have passed medical marijuana laws. It is seen as
an encouragement to a handful of other states to pass similar laws.

But the Supreme Court has yet to address the bottom-line question of
whether the otherwise illegal drug can be used legally in the course of
bona fide medical treatment. Any state that passes medical marijuana
legislation still can expect to wade into an unresolved legal quagmire.

"Of course it's a victory," said California activist Valerie Corral. "But
one would be foolhardy to presume ... we're no longer targets of the
federal government."

By refusing to intervene in Walters v. Conant last week, the high court let
stand a unanimous 9th Circuit of Appeals decision that found physicians
should be able to speak to their patients about marijuana without fear of
government retribution. But the San Francisco-based appellate court also
ruled that physicians can be punished if they help their patients obtain
marijuana.

California has been a flash point for medical marijuana litigation since
its voters passed Proposition 215 in 1996. Legal observers say the law is a
target for federal challenge because it is so broadly written, legalizing
the production and transport of marijuana for medical purposes.

Eight other states have passed laws either legalizing or reducing the
penalties for people using marijuana on the advice of a physician: Alaska,
Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.

Some of the states spell out minimum amounts of marijuana that patients can
possess. Some require that patients enroll in a state registry to legally
use the drug.

New Mexico, New York, Connecticut and Vermont are cited as states which
have come closest to passing their own medical marijuana laws in recent
legislative sessions. Supporters in all four states say they are encouraged
by bipartisan support for the issue.

Vince Marrone, a lobbyist for New Yorkers for Compassionate Care, said
variations on a medical marijuana bill have been introduced in the state
assembly for several years. But last year, the bill started to move rapidly
through committees.

The bill made it to the floor, but couldn't obtain a vote without a Senate
sponsor -- something Marrone thinks they can achieve after Tuesday's
Supreme Court decision.

"The health committee chairman in the Senate told me one of his big issues
was the federal government's role," Marrone said. "I can now at least take
the (federal threat against) doctors off the table."

The last time the Supreme Court did agree to take on a medical marijuana
issue, it was a blow to proponents. Justices ruled in May 2001 that "buyers
clubs" organized for medical marijuana users in California are illegal.

Corral's Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana (also known as WAMM) in
Santa Cruz, Calif., made headlines in 2002 when federal agents raided its
operation and seized the marijuana plants they were growing on premises.
Her group's lawsuit against the federal government is one of several
winding its way through the courts, with the potential to force a direct
examination of medical marijuana by the Supreme Court.

Attorney Gerald Uelman, one of Corral's attorneys in the WAMM lawsuit, said
that he expects the federal government to drop its attempts to coerce
physicians as a result of Tuesday's decision.

"But we haven't seen any decline in Drug Enforcement Agency activity in
enforcing the prohibition of marijuana in California," Uelmen said. "There
have been several raids since WAMM, and it doesn't look like they're
backing off at all."

The Office of National Drug Control Policy was quick to respond to the high
court's decision on Walters v. Conant, stressing that the federal law
regarding marijuana has not changed.

"Yesterday's Supreme Court decision revolves around doctor-patient
practices, not the efficacy of smoked marijuana as medicine," read the
agency's statement.

"We have in place rigorous and proven processes for determining the safety
and efficacy of medicines. The cultivation and trafficking of marijuana
remains a federal offense."